Two reasons the Philippine National Election may go south

social media 03 wearesocial dot sg 500

Social media statistics January 2014 [Photo credit: wearesocial.sg]

Second in a series. The first article: “The two ‘me classes’ that undermine the Philippine nation

Fine print: The audience for this piece is foreigners. However, if you are a Filipino citizen, you are free to read as long as you accept full responsibility for any ideas that arise from within your own cranium. In other words, don’t blame me if you think thoughts that affect your decision-making with regard to the forthcoming election.

We are considering why it is that a nation on the rise, perhaps one of the most exciting and promising nations on the planet, is criticized so abundantly from within, and why voters for the forthcoming Philippine national election may put into office a crook or a dirt-mouthed womanizer or a shallow opportunist rather than a candidate who would assure a continuation of the nation’s rise.

In the first article, we looked at the dominance of two “me classes”, that is, people who are interested in their own well-being ahead of that of the nation: the working poor who use the elections to vent for all the frustrations they must deal with, and the entitled who use the elections to continue to be entitled.

In this one we will look at two other factors that are pushing the voting public to irrational decision-making, where irrational is voting for candidates without the nation’s well-being first and foremost in mind:

  • The youthful population and its emotional, uninformed, reactive ways
  • A political system that puts into office people who do not receive a majority of votes

Youthful population

Let me speak in generalities which can be wrong for a lot of individuals but correct as to tendencies. If you believe my assessments are incorrect or need to be shaded differently, you can explain this in the discussion section that follows the article.

The Philippines is young. Of 56.4 million registered voters, 37%, or about 20 million, are between the ages of 18 and 35 [“Comelec: 54.6M voters sign up for 2016 polls“; CNN Philippines].

Most of these voters have no meaningful knowledge of or connection to the Spanish, American or Japanese occupations, or even the Marcos dictatorship which ended in 1986. They are likely not even aware the details of the more recent plunderings by Presidents Estrada and Arroyo (1998 to 2010).

Furthermore, these voters, like those engaged in social media around the world, are moving fast and shallow.  There is no timeline front or back beyond what is happening on their cell phones and social media today. They come to conclusions quickly and defend their choices with declarative statements, insults and arguments that often make no sense whatsoever. They reject knowledge as an affront to their self-ordained wisdom [“The confidence of the dumb“; Society of Honor]. Oh, yes, there are many, many exceptions. But the mass emphasis is predominantly on “social” engagement, or “fun”, and not “knowledge” or “enlightenment”.

social media 02

Social media statistics January 2015 [Photo credit: wearesocial.sg]

Without question, young people do get the headlined news reports. They do share scandals and highlights and trendy topics. They get videos and photos. But they often do not get the whole context or the technical details behind the headlines.

Specific to the Philippines, the high-speed youth . . . we are talking about voters here . . . ARE aware of the poverty, inefficiency and congestion that surround them. And they easily conclude that this must be the fault of the current government. So they want “change”. They don’t want continuity and stability. They have no idea about the work actually being done, they only see what they face. They don’t anticipate a better future, they only see their troubled now. They can’t discern an irrational promise by a candidate from what can actually be done. They go with the promise, with their heart. They generally tend toward emotional findings rather than rational analytics.

It’s amazing how consistent thinking (or feeling) is when we consider the composition of the Philippines. The Philippines remains tribal or dynastic in a congealed society that is complex and conflicted. Over 100 languages, 7,000 islands, several important religions, old, young, rich, poor, educated and not. Conservative but progressive, shy but outspoken, poor but happy, educated but not critical thinkers. The Philippines is not your land. It is the Philippines. But some things ARE consistent. Emotional and simplistic readouts of complex situations are the norm. Simple conclusions are big. Hard-headed insistence that “I am right” is big. Lotto is big. Entertainment stars are big.

Stars represent people’s dreams for glorious self-fulfillment unattainable in the drudge of everyday existence. It is an aspect of this fast-paced, beat-down, eternally happy . . . and often crabby . . . society. Stars shine brightly. Data and facts . . . not so much. Movie stars, boxers, beauty contestants . . .  they are popular. They get elected to office. They are largely incompetent in office.

Time does not beat the same in the Philippines as elsewhere. It beats slowly and it is seldom calculated into the future. History may exist if it helps an argument, but most people are just dealing with things here and now. They react to situations, and – in doing so – are actually more patient and laid back and resolute and inventive than most. They’ve had a lot of experience just “dealing with it”. Take driving, for instance, where highway lines and lanes are meaningless and people just make their way through the haphazard and congested morass that appears up front. They go with the flow, and do it better than most. To the outsider, it is horrifying, disorganized chaos. To the Filipino, it is a dance, a natural give and take among various flows and forces. 

Filipinos also “deal with it” at government offices, transportation stations and businesses as they are shoveled into long lines and required to do relentlessly ridiculous things to get anywhere or accomplish anything important. Because there is no solution open to them, they are relegated to criticism. Complaining abounds. Alongside complaint is excuse-making and blaming. There have to be culprits in a reactive society where things aren’t going well, and the culprit can never be “me”.

“I’m the victim here.”

With this victimhood comes a certain neediness, a demand to be heard and tended to. Change is more important than continuity. And it means fixing “the other guy”, not me.

The youth is not fighting for a particular cause, like racial freedom or women’s rights. There is no rallying cry. There is just a need to vent. To BE somebody.

Political system

The Philippines does not require a majority vote to select a president. In the 2016 election, it is very much possible that the winning candidate will have less than 30% of all votes. In this situation, in a battle of extremists, an extremist is assured of winning. That extremist cannot secure a mandate of support from the nation. Imagine that, in very simple terms, these are the extreme pesidential candidates we are talking about!

  • A crook and liar
  • A dirt-mouthed, murderous thug
  • A conniving disloyal opportunist
  • An inept goody two-shoes
  • A crazy sick lady

These are not MY assessments, mind you. It is what the disenfranchised, the losers, will think of a candidate put into office with no real national mandate to serve. It is what 70% of the population will think of the winner!!!

To 70% of all Filipinos, their President will not be worth respecting.

President Aquino won with 43% of the votes. It was characterized as a dominant, landslide win, with the nation coming together to put him in office.

No. No.

A full 57% of the voting population did not want him as president! And the level of complaint during his term, the difficulty of getting things done, reflected that considerable headwind. And negativity. And build-up of disenchantment and anger.

One thing that we can be assured of in 2016: the Philippines, as a nation, will be very unhappy with the president who is elected.

That is the system.

And it promotes instability, and a negative view of the nation, from within.

 

Comments
377 Responses to “Two reasons the Philippine National Election may go south”
  1. Jorge Barba says:

    The label “murderous thug” shows the writer is hopelessly naive. Corruption and inefficiency also breed deaths – in fact a thousand more deaths than all the alleged extra-judicial deaths in Davao for the last 20 years!

    • Joe America says:

      Read the blog, Jeorge. I said “These are not MY assessments, mind you. It is what the disenfranchised, the losers, will think of a candidate put into office with no real national mandate to serve.”

      Do you think “the writer” is the only person in the Philippines who will criticize the elected president? That is the issue. See, you are criticizing already and no one is even elected. I suspect that is what you will be doing for six years if your “murderous thug” does not get into office.

      That’s the point, Jeorge. The political system, not the candidates. I don’t really care about the candidates (for this discussion).

      • Cecil says:

        You have got a very good intro but these are my questions, observations and suggestions.

        1. When was it the job of foreigners to try to manipulate Philippine voters?
        2. Where did you get the 30% statistics of the winning president when the election is still months away?
        3. Who among the candidates is/are extremists?
        4. Where did you get those assessments because you did not named your source.
        5. A good writer must name his source if he does not make it his.
        6. Why speak of so much conviction that we will not be happy with our choice when as per number 2 you still dont have the facts.
        7. If you are not a filipino then I think it is best to stay away from our election and stop meddling since you dont know our pecularities or quirks.
        8. Please spare us your doomsday prediction or conclusion because we have the best candidate we can dream of.
        9. I hope you were not paid and did your research on the achievements of our candidates before writing this, I’m sorry, piece of trash article.

        • Joe America says:

          1. It’s not. Filipinos are influenced by the article only if they proceed of their own choice past the warning at the beginning.
          2. Polls as they stand today.
          3. The point is that, to the 70% who voted for someone else, the winner is an extremist. Only 30% of votes.
          4. Reading a lot. Too many sources to list. It is an opinion piece, not a factual statement.
          5. Okay. I’m a bad writer.
          6. Huh? Assumption on your part. I have the polls.
          7. Thanks for the advice. I live in the Philippines. I am free to speak. You are free not to listen.
          8. Don’t read. You will be spared. You are not accountable for what others think.
          9. Not paid. I’ve done my research. Can’t please everyone, and for some odd reason, I don’t mind not pleasing you.

          • hahaha…. i like the fact that they are livid. keep writing joe, i enjoy seeing the uninitiateds blood boil. schadenfreude!

          • cecil says:

            1. It’s not. Filipinos are influenced by the article only if they proceed of their own choice past the warning at the beginning. — The analogy is that someone is selling you an illegal item whether he may or may not buy… the selling alone is illegal and in this case unethical.
            2. Polls as they stand today. — you mean to say the rigged surveys? hahahaha
            3. The point is that, to the 70% who voted for someone else, the winner is an extremist. Only 30% of votes. What 30% of votes are you talking about? The Philippines might vote for the first time a landslide election win for 1 candidate. Anyway this is moot since the 70% might or might not think the winning candidate is an extremist even if he really is an extremist. I can even declare that the Filipinos will accept any president who will be elected without qualms. It was proven when ERAP won. Even in your good old America – Barrack Obama did not have the mandate of the majority the last time he won even though there are only 2 parties to choose from. Does that mean half of your country is/was thinking he is an extremist? Just accept it you choose the wrong words. Do you really know what “extremists” mean?
            4. Reading a lot. Too many sources to list. It is an opinion piece, not a factual statement. — Too many bad sources and for an opinion piece writing about that Filipinos do not care about facts a lot it is ironic that you accept that this is not factual. It invalidates all your article per se.
            5. Okay. I’m a bad writer. — you must quote your source and not just write irresponsibly. Freedom of speech comes with a great responsibility.
            6. Huh? Assumption on your part. I have the polls. —- Hahahah a poll made up of 5000 people including the imaginary ones. One of the employees of said pollsters even admitted they manipulate said polls to favor a certain individual.
            7. Thanks for the advice. I live in the Philippines. I am free to speak. You are free not to listen. —- Yes indeed but as a responsible Filipino we can’t just let a foreigner meddle in our affairs specially if it was in the negative and without facts.
            8. Don’t read. You will be spared. You are not accountable for what others think. —- But of course and to remind you I also have the right to rebutt whatever you say since we both have freedom of expression.
            9. Not paid. I’ve done my research. Can’t please everyone, and for some odd reason, I don’t mind not pleasing you. — This is childish reasoning… tsk… tsk… tsk…

            • cecil says:

              4. Reading a lot. Too many sources to list. It is an opinion piece, not a factual statement. — Too many bad sources and for an opinion piece writing about that “Filipinos do not care about facts a lot”, it is ironic that you accept that this is not factual. It invalidates all your article per se.

              • Joe America says:

                Opinion.

                Okay, cecil, you are not contributing anything to the discussion as set forth in the blog article, but are trolling the blog to defend a political position by trying to undermine my credibility. It is like sly name-calling. If you wish to write positively about your candidate, please do so. But personal attacks are a violation of blog policy.

              • Joe America says:

                I would add that you are not doing your preferred candidate any favors by representing him so crudely. You stand as testament to the kind of thuggish imposition of a personally determined morality on others that is Marcosian and detestable.

            • Joe America says:

              1. Opinion
              2. Opinion
              3. Extremist in statistical terms could be defined to mean a numerical distance from the central point. In my write-up, which is aimed at promoting thinking, it is used to mean a candidate who is not embraced by most of the people. That you miss the point of the blog, and the point of the term, I figure you are not really in my target audience.
              4. Opinion. It invalidates it for you.
              5. Yes it does, which is why readership of the blog is increasing and the articles are read by people of considerable authority.
              6. Faulty argument, generalizing to the whole from an isolated example. Research is the way knowledge is gained.
              7. Who is “we”? What do you propose to do about it. Don’t tell me you are one of those Duterte-style thugs who threatens people he doesn’t really know, in the guise of holding some greater wisdom.
              8. I am giving you the privilege of rebuttal. It is a private blog. You do not own any rights. Correction, you own your own comments, to the extent I am willing to publish them, and you grant me the right to do what I will with them.
              9. Opinion

              • cecil says:

                1. Opinion – ok
                2. Opinion – ok
                3. Extremist in statistical terms could be defined to mean a numerical distance from the central point. In my write-up, which is aimed at promoting thinking, it is used to mean a candidate who is not embraced by most of the people. That you miss the point of the blog, and the point of the term, I figure you are not really in my target audience. ====== Of course you have to consider that someone not from your targeted demographics will come in once in a while and I do laud you for answering my out of this world questions for you. And you have to consider also that you cannot call everyone you don’t like “extremist”. That’s why we have plenty of words or synonyms so that we can use the correct one for each situation. Mind you it is very harsh and will attract negative comments.
                4. Opinion. It invalidates it for you. ======= I hate to bring the news but It invalidates it for many… it’s like the proverbial kettle calling the pot black.
                5. Yes it does, which is why readership of the blog is increasing and the articles are read by people of considerable authority.====== I really do hope that you are well versed in responsible journalism because I found many articles wanting in these criteria. congratulations though for your success.
                6. Faulty argument, generalizing to the whole from an isolated example. Research is the way knowledge is gained. ======== True and correct research will gain you knowledge and not some haphazard invisble surveys of 5K persons when it was supposed to represent the opinion of several millions. As you correctly stated we cannot just base it on an isolated example.
                7. Who is “we”? What do you propose to do about it. Don’t tell me you are one of those Duterte-style thugs who threatens people he doesn’t really know, in the guise of holding some greater wisdom. – I mean “we” the filipinos by blood and citizenry. Oh you must be imagining things or hallucinating although I’m for RRD, I did not threaten you and I did not even mention him. I just want fair and politically correct description or article for that matter. Words are very dangerous and I sense that someone or somebody is driving our Philippines to become mad for everything. It’s like inciting a rebellion. You see if all you read, hear and witness on television are violence and despair there will come a time all those negativisms will bring it’s fruit.
                8. I am giving you the privilege of rebuttal. It is a private blog. You do not own any rights. Correction, you own your own comments, to the extent I am willing to publish them, and you grant me the right to do what I will with them. ====== Thanks but i have to disagree that once you published it on the net without any protection it now becomes “public”.
                9. Opinion – ok

                =============================
                P.S. I did not result to ad-hominems and I really do loved the way you defended yourself because this can only mean you are a Filipino or you are becoming one. We do really act that way as per you. Once again i have to thank you for your civility.

              • Joe America says:

                3. The descriptions of the candidates is harsh to make the point that, when a president is elected with only 30% of the vote, he is in for a rough time, and that makes for a negative dialogue that makes for a negative nation. My goal would be to say, “hey, get over it, move on, and keep the Philippines positive. Campaign harder next election.”
                4. That’s okay. I don’t write to please everyone.
                5. My masters degree is in radio and television arts, a branch of journalism. I worked as a news reporter as a young man.
                7. Words are dangerous, yes. They are also how we generate ideas, narrow down the problems, and work out the solutions.
                8. Read the terms by which you agree to participate here. There is a tab up above. There are protections. The blog is not public space.

                Thank you for responding constructively.

              • Joe America says:

                3. The descriptions of the candidates is harsh to make the point that, when a president is elected with only 30% of the vote, he is in for a rough time, and that makes for a negative dialogue that makes for a negative nation. My goal would be to say, “hey, get over it, move on, and keep the Philippines positive. Campaign harder next election.”
                4. That’s okay. I don’t write to please everyone.
                5. My masters degree is in radio and television arts, a branch of journalism. I worked as a news reporter as a young man.
                7. Words are dangerous, yes. They are also how we generate ideas, narrow down the problems, and work out the solutions.
                8. Read the terms by which you agree to participate here. There is a tab up above. There are protections. The blog is not public space.

                Thank you for responding constructively.

              • cecil says:

                And sorry for the wrong grammars, mispellings and all literary crimes I committed in your blog… but i think you got the gist of my words anyway.

              • Joe America says:

                If you stick around long enough, you will discover that most here dislike “grammar police”. We all have different skills in different languages and ought not worry much about the petty mistakes we all make as we think and type on the fly. The important point is to get ideas out onto the table. You’ve done that well.

            • Madlanglupa says:

              > we can’t just let a foreigner meddle in our affairs specially if it was in the negative and without facts.

              The thing about outsiders is that they’re not influenced by their immediate environment i.e. local agitprop; often they are realists, skeptical than to heap praise on a certain policy, and they see beyond the usual propaganda, they see what is real and not hastily camouflaged. Some of them don’t simply take things at face value, especially posts on Facebook, which has become a tool for propagandists seeking to influence the young by promoting revisionism.

              If so, there will be always be either foreign meddling (especially at this time when a certain regional superpower is watching our elections, and may try to influence the outcome in their favor by covertly supporting one or a few candidates who are partial to their wishes than hostile), or expats who air concerns about forces which could undermine overall stability of their adopted nation.

              • cecil says:

                I concur but it does not mean that we will not offer resistance to the meddling forces and the best example would be a woman who will be raped by a group of stronger men; surely she will put up a resistance even though it is a puny one if you think logically. Just letting them ravaged our self rule and sovereignty is a sign of surrender and loss of hope by our people. This is the ultimate surrender unlike a man threatened with a gun, we are just put into an intellectual tussle here. A struggle which should not be cowered upon. Although I like JoeAm’s handling of the blog, this is still a form of meddling and by all means we should resist it by the rules laid out and that is via intellectual exchanges. That is why we as a people is not going forward because of said negativism. Best is to rally our people to do positive things. I do agree about all the blight hounding us as describe by JoeAm but we knew it already a long time ago and there is no need to put salt on our wounds. We need to heal it by change. And change for the better is what we need. We should believe we can do it. And to do it we need positive samples coz we are like children lost in the woods. We need guides and not perils.

              • Joe America says:

                Three question, cecil.

                1) If I talk about how great Filipinos are, am I meddling?

                2) If I complement President Aquino for stabilizing and building the nation, am I meddling?

                3) Are foreigners to enter the Philippines only on a condition of public silence?

              • Joe America says:

                And a fourth:

                4) If I build a wholesome discussion franchise that allows Filipinos to speak to Filipinos maturely and intelligently, am I meddling?

              • NHerrera says:

                I suggest a speed read through past blog topics in The Society may give a more balanced view on the matter of “meddling.”

              • cecil says:

                @ Joe am… 1-4 questions the answer is no but for this specific topic about the Philippine polls “yes” why? Look and read the article as if you are just the reader and not the author. You are trying to validate your doomsday conclusions with faulty surveys and polls and bearing in mind that you are a highly respected intelligent writer with a good track record many of your readers will be swayed and will just agree. Even though you will say that it will be their own decision but as what we have experienced and learned early in life a teacher or for that a charismatic and influential man can persuade others. You have done great but I hope you will not paint a very bad future for us. Although you have explained yourself already I do still abhor your use of the extremist word. So I offered resistance. I really just explained myself to Madla why everyone needs to do this as one of the duties of good filipinos. We cannot just roll over and die because someone said so. I really admire your blog but it doesn’t mean I will not oppose it if the article is not to my taste. You wrote it yourself to correct you if you are mistaken. Besides isn’t it great somebody will offer you resistance and not just kowtow to your views.

              • Joe America says:

                Fair enough. I actually believe you have a valid point on this specific article. I tried to make a couple of points regarding social tendencies (shallow youth and a president with a 30% mandate having no real mandate), but my leaping off point was partisan. That said, it is a view that is shared by a lot of Filipinos. Or 20% of them, maybe. So the question is, is the idea not to be presented because it is from a foreign brain (whose life and family’s life depends on whom the Philippines elects)?

                We can move on in a friendly way and know we disagree.

              • cecil says:

                A disclaimer first (I really hate to post the next words). Why, a propagandist must just point to your blog about the polls and will make it their basis just for the single reason that you are an authority of the highest credential. The propagandist will then say that because nobody disagreed with him then it must be the “truth” even though you are just describing a future negative event. My post is also a “might happen” a future negative just like yours, that is why i hate it.

              • cecil says:

                Yes you can present an Idea anyway you wish but if you point out a bad result you must also put the “other side of the coin” thing or maybe put a disclaimer that it is only one of the possible scenarios and not say with finality that “whoever wins” it will be met with dismay. As per my previous post I do think it will be the first time that the Philippines will vote in a landslide fashion. Choosing only 1 candidate. ABS-CBN is now clearly backtracking on their failed propagandas and is now slowly showing the correct results of their supposed polls. I still don’t believe it because the number of supposed correspondents are well below .01% of the registered voters.

              • cecil says:

                Now, I am vindicated that for the first time we the filipino’s will be voting in a landslide fashion come May 9, 2016. Also the ABS-CBN and other media outlets are already publicly endorsing the mayor to save face and hoping to avoid persecution once RRD becomes president. The paid surveys are also following suit by releasing a more correct result. In one blog Joe is afraid that he will also be persecuted but I digress RRD is not that vindictive and besides Joe is not a criminal and is only a small fry. I also posted in one FB page along time ago that Mirriam will give way to RDD and will openly endorse him come election time. The fact is RRD is not and was never a criminal and involved with extra judicial killings, but he fully supports the full implementation of the law including laws he made. No exceptions. I do hope Joe you stop being a bigot and accept other views or if not just think many times before you post doomsday predictions.

              • Joe America says:

                The spam system identifies cecil as a possible troll. I decline to engage.

              • chempo says:

                “ABS-CBN and other media outlets are already publicly endorsing the mayor to save face and hoping to avoid persecution once RRD becomes president…”

                Wow Cecil really portends the coming a fascist hand. Thanks for the warning man.

    • What joe probably was trying to say is that the people who didn’t vote for whoever the winner is will have a negative characterization of the winner.

    • purple says:

      Dutarte’s strong man personae will be laughed at by China, Washington, international finance and anyone with real power. The Philippines got investment grade rating in 2015. Putting a guy in who wants to abolish Congress isn’t going to help continue that, if it matters to anyone.

      • Joe America says:

        Hahaha, yes, one is inclined to listen to the laughter that follows his kill remarks and wonder if that debate was actually cocks in the arena and Duterte was flapping highest.

        I hope it matters to a lot of people.

        • docbebot says:

          Why is Duterte registering? Political narrative. In 2010, Arroyo is a thief, Noynoy is honest. In 2016, Noynoy is weak, bakla, Duterte is strong, macho. Mar is weak, teka teka. Perception. Spin.

          • Joe America says:

            I’d guess a characteristic I’d call cultural inversion, where weak is viewed as strong, and strong weak. Rather like ambition is negative and success is insulting. It goes in cyles.

  2. Micha says:

    Thanks to American celebration of individualism in the last 30 odd years, Filipinos are merely catching up.

    • Joe America says:

      My reaction to your comment is . . . “huh?”

      Americans have been celebrating individualism since 1776, and have focused on human rights the last half century.

      • Micha says:

        Not really. You need to have a sense of community, a sense of nationhood as a starting point to build a country. The pioneers were more communal than you thought. The extreme selfishness of individualists came only much later when Saint Ronald declared that “the gov’t is the problem” and elevated privatization alongside strong emphasis on individual freedom and individual responsibility into the altar of right wing conservative dogma.

        • I agree with Micha, but I’d probably roll it back further to Teddy Roosevelt years. Trump reminds me a lot of Teddy Roosevelt.

          • Joe America says:

            So are we talking about when nationalism broke down to individualism? I am confused by the “communal” term because I can’t even relate to it. I think I’m missing the point in some way.

            • Sorry, I should’ve clarified. I’m agreeing to Micha’s take on nationhood somewhere in the future, and not 1776 (yours). The Ayn Rand stuff she’s talking about I don’t really agree with. But re timeline when the US coalesced I’d credit Teddy.

              • Joe America says:

                Okay, thanks. I understand coalesce as a nation, and would accept your dating of that. I’d peg WWI as a coalescing event, and WW II. I might do a study of the draft as a socio-economic unifier, as a nation-builder. Some would point to Viet Nam and say it actually did the opposite, turning people against their government. Yet the soldiers returning seem to retain that national loyalty, even as some (John Kerry) disagreed with the war. Just rambling here . . .

              • Micha says:

                @Lance

                Ayn Rand stuff is toxic for a nation. Agree or disagree?

              • Micha,

                I agree individualism for individualism sake is toxic, & does not a great nation make. But I disagree with you on your description of the state of the US vis-a-vis individualism. I think the US still has the right balance of individualism and communal spirit— the reason for its greatness.

                Let’s continue this discussion, if you wanna debate this, in Joe’s coming Trump article.

          • purple says:

            Trump is a caudillo. Dutarte, basically.

            • Madlanglupa says:

              > caudillo

              That is the perfect word to describe the strongman. A caudillo. It makes sense, after all, we’re more in common with a South American country than our Confucian neighbors.

        • Joe America says:

          I can assure you that individuality existed in the 1950’s, so I think you are operating with an ideology that works for you, to cast your blames for today’s societal ills. The only communal experience I witnessed was church and gangs.

          • Micha says:

            Okay, so why are you surprised at Filipinos’ selfishness and individualism? Remember that we are your former colonial post, made to imitate everything American.

            • Joe America says:

              The Philippine institutions are American, the culture is Filipino, based on tribal and collective interests other than the nation. At least that’s the way I’ve been reading the analyses done by Irineo and others. Whenever I speak of American style national sacrifice and patriotism, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

              • Joe America says:

                The presidential debates will start here soon, so I will be away from the dialogue. What I would suggest, rather than us getting embroiled in a tit for tat set of arguments and explanations where you try to pin me down as being in error, how about if I concede I don’t know anything, and you explain what the facts are in something other than mysterious two-sentence blurbs.

              • Micha says:

                If Filipinos are, by nature and culture, tribal and collectivists, you should un-check selfishness, individualism, me-classes in the characterization.

                Other countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany, etc.) have regional or ethnic groupings too.

                Maybe the problem is not a strong enough central gov’t to fuse the regions and not so much, as you characterize, Filipino youth and poor folks’ selfishness.

              • Joe America says:

                I never used the word “selfish” for poor people, that is yours. I would say trapped without much opportunity. Shallow, fast-moving, socially connected youth is a global phenomenon, not mine. I just say it is evident here in some of the arguments you see justifying candidates who would not even be on the candidate list in a nation of high ethical drive.

                Now, I agree, a strong, charismatic leader who is also competent as a manager, could perhaps generate more national cohesion, but I doubt it will happen when the winning candidate has 30% of the vote. A good war might also generate national cohesion, but it is not among my recommendations.

              • Micha says:

                @Joe

                If one is “trapped without much opportunity”, one would, by necessity, behave selfishly. That is the reason why the poor folks gravitate towards a politician’s promise of “giginhawa ang lahat”.

              • Joe America says:

                Selfish, to me, has a negative connotation, of bad intent. I think “trapped by circumstance” is non-judgmental. I purposely avoided the term “selfish”. It is yours to use, but I would not, and I’d prefer you not assign it to me, as I avoided the term intentionally.

              • RHiro says:

                Fundamentalism/Ideologies have no place in human societies…getting American history right is a case in point. Once again I beg our host to allow me to post this. it is vitally important.

                The Jefferson vs Hamilton debate has been the cornerstone of American political economy.

                Here the Rizal vs Bonifacio – Filipino vs Indio divide still is the reality of Philippine political economy.

                http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/02/the-in-praise-of-alexander-hamilton-section-from-our-concrete-economics-in-fortune-online.html

                Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong: Concrete Economics: The Hamilton Approach to Economic Growth and Policy: (Allston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press: 1422189813) http://amzn.to/1XxIyPV
                Over at Fortune Online:
                Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong: Why Hamilton—Not Jefferson—Is the Father of America’s Economy: We honor him on the $10 bill, but Alexander Hamilton deserves more… READ MOAR @ Fortune Online

                How we can better energize America’s economy, create more jobs, and provide more fulfilling lives for our citizens? Politics says that the answer is either ‘Left!’ or ‘Right!’ But neither of those is the solution. To find the answer, we need to look at our American past.
                We Americans have been repeating the same political-economic arguments in different keys and with different harmonies—the arguments over the costs and benefits of freer trade, of government support for industry, over the righteousness of libertarian government, over activist New Dealism—for more than two centuries now. Yet today we have largely forgotten the earlier rounds of this debate: the ones that started with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

                Jefferson has gotten the better monuments and the better press in both newspapers and history books (but not in musicals, where the brilliant Lin Manuel-Miranda and his colleagues’ rap/rock rules). But in policy and in the real material arc of history, it is Hamilton who looms as the giant. He was the architect of the boldest, most original, and most important deliberate reshaping of the economy of the United States of America. Adam Smith’s ideas dominated and continue to dominate economics textbooks. But it is Hamilton’s more pragmatically oriented corrections to laissez-faire and to Smith’s ‘System of Natural Liberty’ that have successfully shaped development strategy for successful ‘late developers’ like Germany, Japan, Korea, and China—and, to a substantial degree, the United States.

                Before Hamilton, it was the Jeffersonian economic mold, the mold that Britain had imposed through its mercantilist colonial policy, into which the American economy was being poured. Jefferson wanted to cut America loose politically from what he saw as the corruption of Imperial Britain. But he had no major quarrel with the un-industrialized agrarian economy that the British Empire was designing America to be.
                Hamilton, a New Yorker, thought differently: that liberty could spring from the city as well as the countryside, and that prosperous market economies needed big pushes to get themselves going. And so Hamilton pushed the United States into a pro-industrialization, high-tariff, pro-finance, big-infrastructure political economy, and that push set in motion a self-sustaining process.

                Representatives of both western farmers and New England manufacturing workers saw that it was good for them to impose high tariffs on imported British goods, and use the revenue to build the infrastructure for an America that would not just be Europe’s farmer, logger, and miner, but a manufacturer and a researcher in its own right.
                After Hamilton, the U.S. economy was different. It was a bet on manufacturing, technologies, infrastructure, commerce, corporations, finance, and government support of innovation. That turned out to be good for more than just farmers and the bosses and workers: it turned out to be good for the country as a whole.

                Urban commercial prosperity was essential for a good and a free society. A desperately poor urban population could not be supporters of liberty. And a rural society—even a frugally prosperous one—that lacked a critical manufacturing capability could not defend itself against empire building by Britain, France, the Netherlands, or Spain. At best, it would be dependent on unwanted and unfair foreign alliances.

                Alexander Hamilton has only a single statue honoring him, in front of the building that now houses his Treasury Department. And the current secretary of the Treasury wants to remove Hamilton’s portrait—and his stern vigilance—from the $10 bill.
                Yet the United States we have today is not Jefferson’s, but Hamilton’s. Why? Because once the Hamiltonian system was set, it stuck. It worked. And so, very quickly it became too strong and too useful to too many powerful groups for any political coalition to dismantle it.

                Hamilton’s system was constructed of four drivers that reinforced one another, not just economically but politically: high tariffs; high spending on infrastructure; assumption of the states’ debts by the federal government; and a central bank.
                The economy was to be reshaped to promote industry. And the principal instrument for this was a high tariff on manufactured imports from Britain, the traditional world-dominant manufacturer.

                The tariff would provide the incentive to invest in the development of manufacturing technologies and would subsidize the nascent manufacturing firms that would make those investments.

                It was also to be the major source of federal government revenues, and would thus support an extensive program of infrastructure development. This was vital for territorial expansion and economic development, and for adding the critical political support of the western farmers to the northern coastal commercial and labor interests.
                But that was not all. The tariff was also the instrument that permitted the federal government to credibly assume states’ debts incurred to fund the Revolutionary War, thus strengthening the central government (central to Hamilton’s plans).

                The creation of a federal government debt also constituted the basis of a new and vigorous financial market. No wonder then that in Hamilton’s strong and settled opinion: ‘a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.’

                Finally there was Bank of the United States, which Hamilton designed to sit at the center of the financial system and tame the wildcat banks and their wildcat currencies.
                As the Hamiltonian system developed, tariffs rose to about 35% of the values of manufactured imports by 1816. And the tariff stayed up: it was among very highest in the North Atlantic for more than a century. These benefits were massive. They were also massively unexpected. Hamilton believed that a focus on manufacturing, technology, secondary-product exports, corporate organization, banks, and finance was a very good bet. But he and his allies had no idea how good a bet it would be. Nobody did.
                The Hamiltonian system flourished, and slowly transformed itself first into the American System of manufacturers and then into mass production and Fordism proper. It set the pattern for all subsequent redesigns of the American economy. And that has since spread over an ever-increasing proportion of the globe.

                What was needed, and what the United States got at the right time, was Alexander Hamilton

                So what is the lesson? The lesson is not that activist government industrial policy is always right. Jefferson’s ideology of agrarian utopia coupled with Smithian laissez-faire was wrong for its day. But Stalin’s ideology of over-investing in heavy industry to seek massive economies of scale—although it did produce a tank industry that could fight off Hitler—was equally wrong for the post-World War II move from industrial into post-industrial economies.

                Similarly Japan’s MITI was great for Japan’s post-WWII catch up but became a cropper once Japan was no longer following a well-blazed industrial development trail. And turning Hamiltonian exaltation of financial depth into an ideology creates major weaknesses, the bill for which came due in 1929-1933 and again in 2007-2009.

                The lesson is that ideologies—no matter what they are—are bad masters. Hamilton’s genius was in focusing on not what was decreed according to ideological first principles laid down by some academic scribbler, but rather focusing on what was in a pragmatic sense likely to generate prosperity at that moment in that situation.
                Hamilton broadly got it right. His successors who continued his policies under decent Jeffersonian draperies also got it right. The post-Civil War decision to go for a heavily-industrialized economy knit together by continent-spanning railroads got it right. The Progressive course correction of the inequities produced by the Gilded Age got it right. So did the—overwhelmingly pragmatic—policies of FDR and of Eisenhower.

                It is only in the past generation that we have forgotten our pragmatic past and applied ideological litmus tests to what our public policies will be. And we have suffered for it.

              • Joe America says:

                Wow. Powerful stuff. Enlightening, and I appreciate it a lot. Color me Hamiltonian.

              • RHiro says:

                Jefferson was an ideological republican in so far as the individual States were concerned.

                He disdained the idea of a central government over the same states. He felt it smacked of the same system as British imperialism. Slavery was a necessary system for the progress of a European White agrarian society…Alexander Hamilton saw it differently and he sought to build up a national system of economics.

                http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b59d0c0a-25f9-11e4-8bb5-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz43UjkCgHy

                “Jefferson saw slavery as a state of war between master and slave. It was a legal institution that categorised blacks as property and gave all whites authority over every black person. Even after it was destroyed, the law and the officers who enforced it remained a useful way of keeping blacks in an inferior position – in particular, of policing the movement and behaviour of black men.”

                “This was not war as Jefferson envisaged it, but the post-slavery experiences of black people were consonant with his predictions. Black people, he said, would never forget the wrongs done to them in slavery and the white majority would never overcome its “deep rooted prejudices” against black people. And this, he feared, would undercut America’s republican experiment – for it would discredit a republic founded on the egalitarian principles eloquently set forth in the American Declaration of Independence.”

                “That document, which insists that all men are equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would lose much of its power if the society formed in its image contained a permanent group of second-class citizens. And so Jefferson offered separation as the most viable solution. Blacks would have to leave the US to find true citizenship in a country of their own. “

      • Micha says:

        But granting your premise that “Americans have been celebrating individualism since 1776”, you shouldn’t be surprised at Filipinos’ version of it because we’ve been aping you even before McArthur returned.

  3. JoebenNoach says:

    I am expecting an incisive and nuanced discussion of issues. Instead what I got are hasty generalizations and outlandish conclusions.

  4. Is there anything in the Philippines comparable to this: http://www.shell.de/aboutshell/our-commitment/shell-youth-study-2015.html – Shell regularly makes a study about German youth – their values and attitudes: work and family, media, politics, consumer attitudes and more.

    Probably not – I know for example from over here that surveys not only ask about voting preferences but also try to quantify what aspects led certain groups to vote for certain parties.

    What we really know is also woefully inadequate, unless Karl surprises us again with something.

    • Joe America says:

      Ich weiss nicht. The SWS and Pulse Asia polls do delve into some social phenomena and trends but I don’t recall seeing anything on modern youth in the Philippines. The trend toward superficiality and outspoken opinions are recognized as global trends for the socially connected class.

      • karlgarcia says:

        I found no equivalent in Shell Philippines web site.
        What they have are sustainable development articles, articles on resilency.

        I found this article on the study of philippine youth published 2004

        http://you.sagepub.com/content/12/4/357.abstract

        This article deals with the current theoretical trends in Philippine youth research. It aims at: (1) providing a preliminary summary and assessment of existing Philippine youth studies in terms of their theoretical underpinnings; (2) describing the general theoretical trends in Philippine youth studies; and (3) suggesting some useful recommendations for the future theoretical development in youth studies. The discussion is set within the macro-structural trends shaping Filipino youth and the historical relevance of youth studies in the life of the nation.”

        SWS has a youth study but this was published in the 90s

        http://www.sws.org.ph/youth.htm

        Abstract
        This paper reports on a national survey, done in 1996 by Social Weather Stations for the Philippine National Youth Commission, in order to evaluate in detail the attitudes, values, needs, aspirations, and problems of Filipinos within ages 15 and 30.
        The survey found that the youth feel very proud to be Filipino, easily declaring willingness to defend the country in case of war. They put great importance on marriage and family, friends, education, work, religion , society, and money, but not much importance on recreation, hobbies, or politics. They are very sensitive to how parents and children make personal sacrifices for each other. Not only are they personally religious, but they actively participate in religious organizations very regularly. They are generally satisfied with the government’s performance in the areas of their own needs.
        Comparative analysis with surveys of American youth indicates that Filipino youth have more self-confidence and more satisfaction with life. They get along better with parents and neighbors.They get together with friends less often, and yet are as satisfied with these relationships as Americans are. They are more content with their educational opportunities, their standard of living, and their jobs. Filipino youth get less exercise, however, and are less exposed to television and movies.
        A comparison with surveys of adult Filipinos shows that the youth consider the economy as the country’s most pressing problem area, but think that they themselves can do little about it. They smoke and drink less, regard their health as good, feel happier, and are more optimistic. Yet, at the same time, the 1996 survey found unexpectedly high incidences of youth involvement in criminality, illegal drug use, and illicit sex.

        • Joe America says:

          That last line is a bit of a reversal of all said before. Everything is healthy and happy until that line. I wonder if the survey measured what youth thought their parents would want to hear, but when asked about specifics, got to a different kind of answer. It would be fascinating to survey today’s youth with the same questionnaire and methodology and do a timeline comparison.

          Thanks for the articles. I’ll try to dig into them after the debates.

        • Interesting.

          “Yet, at the same time, the 1996 survey found unexpectedly high incidences of youth involvement in criminality, illegal drug use, and illicit sex.”

          karl,

          Could this be the start of the shabu epidemic over there?

          • karlgarcia says:

            The problem today are stree kids throwing rocks,and some are jumping on roofs of jeepneys,etc.Maybe if shabu is poor man’s coke. Rugby a brand of solvent is a poor kids way out of reality.

  5. “And it promotes instability, and a negative view of the nation, from within.”

    I’m on pins and needles waiting for the “from within”, turned inward to family units. But that internet usage graph was a surprise, Joe, the slowest internet in the region uses it the most.

  6. Donna says:

    Ouch Joe! That hurts. Sometimes thou hurting the Pinoy’s psyche brings out the best in us. I wish more of us hurt by your article will try to prove you wrong! God bless the Philippines!

    • Joe America says:

      Point one, the shallowness of youth primed by social media, is a global trend. Point two, the plurality form of elections, is systemic and correctable by how parties are structured, and voting methods. It shouldn’t hurt too much, I hope.

      Thanks for reading and dropping off your comment. We are on the same page in wanting the best for the Philippines.

      • Donna says:

        It would probably take another 30 years to form the right political mix that would bring our country to first world status. We are a young republic and education is the key. We will live by our core values of love for God, family and country. We did it in Edsa and we will do it again. Just wait and see. Thank you for also wanting the best for our country.

      • Micha says:

        Wow. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

        Mayor Digong is saying, “kung hindi ka marunong pumatay, di ka pwede maging pangulo.”

        Low, low, low.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          A real fascist.
          *****

          • Micha says:

            At one point in the event Digong and Binay have mutual admiration; each was saying that the other is more qualified to be President; so there goes the implication : marunong din pumatay si Binay.

            I guess he’s not called Rambotito for nothing.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Wadapak talaga pak na pak

        • Madlanglupa says:

          And his supporters and his Internet army lap it up, knowing that he is a demigod, a genius, a brown knight who did not need fiery speeches but sound bites and promises and action-star strutting.

          • cecil says:

            Fortunately his promises are not empty promises and if you really want the best for the Philippines you should try to background check the candidates and what have they done for the Philippines.

            • Madlanglupa says:

              > Fortunately his promises are not empty promises

              Yes, he promises to set up a “revolutionary government” if anything fails within six months. No internet, no cigarettes — light up and get landed in jail. I am not convinced of his supposed accomplishments of the city that worships him, like Pyongyang following the Kims’ commands.

              He is no Lee Kwan Yew. Besides Rody burned the Singaporean flag after Contemplacion was hung.

              • cecil says:

                But a revolutionary government might be the best thing for us at this moment. We can scrapped payment of all our international debts although the repercussions will also be big. The odds will be good for us basing on history of France and other revolutionary govt. We will be in for a very chaotic start but after that stabilizes our next generation will reap our fruits. We should not be afraid to sacrifice the “Present” for the future but I guess you have plenty to lose that is why you are clinging for stability.

              • chempo says:

                @ Cecil…How will the revolutionary government stabilise the next generation? Very interesting concept. Please educate us.

              • Madlanglupa says:

                > he odds will be good for us basing on history of France

                No discussion on the French Revolution is complete with The Reign of Terror that followed; Under Robespierre, 16 thousand killed, another 25 thousand killed, often with a kangaroo court, or simply hauled away. Not even the chemist Lavoisier was spared, nor organized religion, nor the peasantry who were falsely accused.

                In addition, the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao unleashed the youth against the rest of the population, which resulted in wholesale violence and warrantless arrest, and at least some personages thrown out of the window. Anything that was deemed against the Party are destroyed, including countless books and even priceless ancient scriptures, and worse, science ended up denounced as anti-Party.

                So, those kind of revolutions, when reason and logic are thrown out of the window, and instead of providing hope, they promote fear and uncertainty. And the instigator, in trying to destroy the monsters that plague the common man by means of mass violence, becomes the monster himself.

              • chempo says:

                @ Madlanglupa — you know your history well.

                You are also too polite to talk about William Sauders.

                I think what Cecil has in mind is Duterte’s version — only criminals will be killed in the first 6 months. After that I dont know….

              • cecil says:

                Correct Madla… I fear for the future but if it is the only way to correct our society… so be it. Dying a coward and not trying is dying a thousand times. We do have the odds on our side now 1. We now have modern communications and transport 2. We now have the knowledge of the past. 3. Literacy is high 4. We might have a very good leader who does not aspire material things for himself. @Chempo, a revolutionary govt. tends to equalize the statuses of the citizenry. The problem of France were the royals who heavily oppressed their own people. Our problem is the oligarchy oppressing our people by dipping their filthy hands on our taxes. One can just cite the billions of pesos of unpaid loans by them. Ever since history they are controlling the strings of our legislators. Did you ever wonder why we had been overtaken by Cambodia and Vietnam? It was not a long time ago they were just refugees here. Now look at them!

              • cecil says:

                @Chempo

                Quoting from wikipiedia

                “Historians have pointed to many events and factors culminating within the Ancien Régime to lead to the Revolution. Rising social and economic inequality,[14][15] new political ideas emerging from the Enlightenment,[16] economic mismanagement, environmental factors leading to agricultural failure, unmanageable national debt,[17] and political mismanagement on the part of King Louis XVI have all been cited as laying the groundwork for the Revolution.[18][19][20][21]”

                1. Rising social and economic inequality – Check!
                2. New political Ideas – federalism is not really new but Check!
                3. Economic mismanagement etc. – Check!
                4. Unmanageable National debt – Check!
                5. political Mis-management – Check!

              • Madlanglupa says:

                There is hardly such a thing as a just revolution, in most cases only exchanging one despot for another, only more violent. And I am wary of demagogues, having seen aplenty, both in literature (1984, Animal Farm) and cinema:

              • chempo says:

                @ Cecil, here’s what I don’t understand:

                The time for revolution was 1986. 2016 — do you even know what has been done in the last 5 years + compared to past few admins taken together?

                – do you know the number of new classrooms built?
                – do you know how much has been geared for military?
                – do you know how much has been handed out under the 4Ps? — do you know this has been so successful that all presidential candidates say they will continue with it?
                – do you know how much as been geared for infrastructure?
                – do you know how much crime rate has dropped nationally? — this after PNP instiutionalised proper modern measurement standards?
                – do you know how many big wigs have cases filed against them?
                – do you know who had the guts to go after PDAF after all these years?
                – do you know who had the guts to take out a corrupt chief justice?, and a corrupt Ombudsman?
                – Do you know how much new jobs were created in the past few years? — clikc the link to see unemployment rate chart.
                https://societyofhonor.wordpress.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=15396

                These are only some of the good stuff. There are many others, like increased BIR collection. But of course, nothing is perfect and there are lots of further improvements required.

                Lastly, why be rebel without a cause. Why revolt against a govt that has given the country sterling GDP growth in the last 5 years, amongst the best in the world. That’s something to be proud of.

                Your reasons for revolution:–
                1. Rising social and economic inequality –
                Income inequality is measured by the gini coefficient (on a scale of 0 to 100, zero being perfect equality). This measurement is difficult to come by. Philippines is the worst performer in SE Asia, but it has been like this for decades.
                2010 – Phils 44.0, Thai 42.5 Indonesia 39.4 M’sia 37.9 Viet 37.9
                2013 — Phils 43.0 Thai 39.4 Indonesia 38.1 M’sia 46.2 Viet 35.6
                For comparative – USA 2010 — 40.5 2013 41.1
                Noe how Malaysia got worst — reflective of their deep political problems at the moment and economic mismanagement.
                Pnoy admin understand SMEs are the driver of economic growth and income distribution, that was why SME was at the center of Pnoy’s APEC agenda recently. Do you know the govt has programs for SME developemnt such as Shared Services Facilities (SSF),SME Roving Academy. The govt is doing what they need to do. It takes time.

                2. New political Ideas – federalism is not really new, but in an established democracy, you dont need revolution to change. Civilised people have national referendums. Philippines call it a more fanciful term — plebiscite

                3. Economic mismanagement — what is your complain to having the best GDP growth in the world for the last 5 years?

                4. Unmanageable National debt – I dont want to get into too much statistics, but just to mention this. Debts in itself is nothing worng. It’s a question of whther you can afford to service it. As your salaries improve, you buy more big ticket items— a car, a house, so your loans go up. But you can service it because your salaries have gone up. Similarly, a country’s economic expansion brings about increased debts, but all indications from BSP and World Bank data show that Philippines debt servicing ratio has gone done to manageable levels.

                5. Political Mis-management – Wait a minute, you mean Pnoy is responsible for this? Pls clarify what you mean.

              • cecil says:

                chempo says:
                March 22, 2016 at 7:18 pm
                @ Cecil, here’s what I don’t understand:

                The time for revolution was 1986. 2016 — do you even know what has been done in the last 5 years + compared to past few admins taken together?

                – do you know the number of new classrooms built?
                – do you know how much has been geared for military?
                – do you know how much has been handed out under the 4Ps? — do you know this has been so successful that all presidential candidates say they will continue with it?
                – do you know how much as been geared for infrastructure?
                – do you know how much crime rate has dropped nationally? — this after PNP instiutionalised proper modern measurement standards?
                – do you know how many big wigs have cases filed against them?
                – do you know who had the guts to go after PDAF after all these years?
                – do you know who had the guts to take out a corrupt chief justice?, and a corrupt Ombudsman?
                – Do you know how much new jobs were created in the past few years? — clikc the link to see unemployment rate chart.
                https://societyofhonor.wordpress.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=15396

                These are only some of the good stuff. There are many others, like increased BIR collection. But of course, nothing is perfect and there are lots of further improvements required.

                Lastly, why be rebel without a cause. Why revolt against a govt that has given the country sterling GDP growth in the last 5 years, amongst the best in the world. That’s something to be proud of.

                Your reasons for revolution:–
                1. Rising social and economic inequality –
                Income inequality is measured by the gini coefficient (on a scale of 0 to 100, zero being perfect equality). This measurement is difficult to come by. Philippines is the worst performer in SE Asia, but it has been like this for decades.
                2010 – Phils 44.0, Thai 42.5 Indonesia 39.4 M’sia 37.9 Viet 37.9
                2013 — Phils 43.0 Thai 39.4 Indonesia 38.1 M’sia 46.2 Viet 35.6
                For comparative – USA 2010 — 40.5 2013 41.1
                Noe how Malaysia got worst — reflective of their deep political problems at the moment and economic mismanagement.
                Pnoy admin understand SMEs are the driver of economic growth and income distribution, that was why SME was at the center of Pnoy’s APEC agenda recently. Do you know the govt has programs for SME developemnt such as Shared Services Facilities (SSF),SME Roving Academy. The govt is doing what they need to do. It takes time.

                ===========================
                Philippines is the worst performer in SE Asia, but it has been like this for decades.

                — And you still want this while the China and Vietnam are making great strides.
                ===========================
                Pnoy admin understand SMEs are the driver of economic growth and income distribution, that was why SME was at the center of Pnoy’s APEC agenda recently. Do you know the govt has programs for SME developemnt such as Shared Services Facilities (SSF),SME Roving Academy. The govt is doing what they need to do. It takes time.

                — Those are good projects but you don’t have to sacrifice food sufficiency and other parts of our economy and as per economic growth report we are just riding on the backs of BPO’s and OFW’s for decades.
                ============================

                2. New political Ideas – federalism is not really new, but in an established democracy, you dont need revolution to change. Civilised people have national referendums. Philippines call it a more fanciful term — plebiscite

                —– As long as lobbying groups with self preservation interests are around plebiscites have a chance to be rigged.
                =================================

                3. Economic mismanagement — what is your complain to having the best GDP growth in the world for the last 5 years? – Best GDP growth based on 2 factors? You don’t want modern weapons and tech manufacturing here in the Philippines just like what China have accomplished in around 20 years? You don’t want food security?

                ==============================
                4. Unmanageable National debt – I dont want to get into too much statistics, but just to mention this. Debts in itself is nothing worng. It’s a question of whther you can afford to service it. As your salaries improve, you buy more big ticket items— a car, a house, so your loans go up. But you can service it because your salaries have gone up. Similarly, a country’s economic expansion brings about increased debts, but all indications from BSP and World Bank data show that Philippines debt servicing ratio has gone done to manageable levels.

                We do have the money now but still they are mismanaging our funds
                ==============================

                5. Political Mis-management – Wait a minute, you mean Pnoy is responsible for this? Pls clarify what you mean.

                Yes… We have no PDAF but they only changed it to another name. We have the reallocation of funds scam. We have the HKG bus and all sorts of blunder from this admin. They impeached the chief justice but they did not charge him so he is still free to roam around. Mind you I predicted many of the scenes in the impeachment complaint down to the mystery employee and the negotiated result. It really is like a badly scripted movie. It was in another forum though and unfortunately the database was wiped.
                ================================

              • chempo says:

                On income inequality:
                You said China and Viet made great strides —- sorry, China in 2014 their gini coefficient was 73. 1/3 of the country’s wealth is in the hands of 1% of the pop. Many many years ago it’s givi coefficet was ‘0’ — perfect equality. Because under communisim, everybody earned U$100 a month when I was last there in 1984.

                All I’m saying is income inequality is one of the toughest things to tackle. The govt recognizes it and is making headway. 6 years is not enough time. Why — because it requires structural changes . Perhaps Dutertre can do it in 3 months — via nationalization. Let’s take everything away from the Lopezes, Henry Sy, Cojuancos, Lucio Tans, etc etc….and then what, give it to who? Four legs good, two legs better — do you understand that? From the short story ‘Animal Farm’, do you know the story? Go read it.

                “ — Those are good projects but you don’t have to sacrifice food sufficiency and other parts of our economy and as per economic growth report we are just riding on the backs of BPO’s and OFW’s for decades “”
                Granted the agri part is very important and much work need to be done. But I don’t understand why you should say it’s “sacrificed” as if budget allocation to agri has been cut. That’s not the case.
                OFW has nothing to do with GDP growth.
                BPO still has room for growth – what is so wrong with pushing it to its full potential.
                Do you know that for the first time, under this admin, Manufacturing is evolving into another engine of growth? — and there is no father of manufacturing — just secretaries doing what they are supposed to do, make the industry grow.

                On federalism “—– As long as lobbying groups with self preservation interests are around plebiscites have a chance to be rigged”..
                I give up Cecil – so Referendums/plebiscite are out. It’s one man’s declaration of power for you.

                On Economic mismanagement —
                My comments “what is your complain to having the best GDP growth in the world for the last 5 years? –
                Your comments == “Best GDP growth based on 2 factors? You don’t want modern weapons and tech manufacturing here in the Philippines just like what China have accomplished in around 20 years? You don’t want food security?”
                You are not registering, so I’ll not pursue.

                On unmanageable national debt – “We do have the money now but still they are mismanaging our funds”…
                Come on Cecil, you can do better than that. Be specific, not hollow statements like that.

                On Political Mis-management –
                My comments “Wait a minute, you mean Pnoy is responsible for this? Pls clarify what you mean”
                Your comments :
                “Yes… We have no PDAF but they only changed it to another name. We have the reallocation of funds scam.”
                – PDAF and DAF are different animals. SC said it’s illegal. It’s stopped, that’s it. There is no abuse. Even the courts said no body stole anything from DAF. What it means is in effect, the court will not allow the Executive to allocate urgent discretionary funds when its needed. Bottom line — people disadvantaged. You are happy with that.

                “We have the HKG bus and all sorts of blunder from this admin”
                Yes some mistakes do happen, some poor performances do happen. Are you telling me such things never happen in all other admin? But I do agree with you – Pnoy has a weakness — to slow to fire his people found wanting.

                “ They impeached the chief justice but they did not charge him so he is still free to roam around. Mind you I predicted many of the scenes in the impeachment complaint down to the mystery employee and the negotiated result. It really is like a badly scripted movie. It was in another forum though and unfortunately the database was wiped.”
                — Long story short, the man is gone. Take out the champagne. And congratulations to the Executive with the guts to take out a CJ. What does that demonstrate to the world? It’s not business as usual. We are serious about going after corruption — and that you are not happy with?

                Cecil, you come across as a smart guy. Sure you are entitle to your opinions. But I find you have too much negativity for an administration that has provided some rays of sunshine into the country. It’s slowly gaining respect from many other countries. Philippines stand poised to break out of the shambles it has been in since Marcos’ days. I predict it requires another 2 administration of the Pnoy calibre, better still if of higher standards, to get the country in good shape. Forget the ” I can do this in 3-6 months” notion. Elementary school kids may fall for that.

              • cecil says:

                On income inequality:
                You said China and Viet made great strides —- sorry, China in 2014 their gini coefficient was 73. 1/3 of the country’s wealth is in the hands of 1% of the pop. Many many years ago it’s givi coefficet was ‘0’ — perfect equality. Because under communisim, everybody earned U$100 a month when I was last there in 1984.

                All I’m saying is income inequality is one of the toughest things to tackle. The govt recognizes it and is making headway. 6 years is not enough time. Why — because it requires structural changes . Perhaps Dutertre can do it in 3 months — via nationalization. Let’s take everything away from the Lopezes, Henry Sy, Cojuancos, Lucio Tans, etc etc….and then what, give it to who? Four legs good, two legs better — do you understand that? From the short story ‘Animal Farm’, do you know the story? Go read it.
                ============== ============================================================ ****I do not wish to give or get anything to anybody. All I want to see is to remove contractualization and increase the salaries of the masses. I have experienced living from a salary that is only enough to feed you and you can do nothing else. I took the job so that i will have a temporary income. It is a trap that is very hard to overcome but fortunately thanks to my parents I had a better education than most of my coworkers who cannot climb out of the the trap and just wallow in poverty. And poverty breeds a lot of blight like corruption and other ills of the society. Do you wonder why Norway, Finland, Switzerland and all other successful countries have a better outlook in life? They are more happy. I do not support perfect equality either because it will stifle competition. Let’s say the real acceptable cost of living is around 50K per month per household… we should be giving 25K minimum wage plus the cost of health and other services. Provided some safety nets for me a good policy might be to require large corporations to give as bonus 20-30% of net profit divided equally to all it’s employees according to attendance and some other criteria.***
                =======================================================================
                “ — Those are good projects but you don’t have to sacrifice food sufficiency and other parts of our economy and as per economic growth report we are just riding on the backs of BPO’s and OFW’s for decades “”
                Granted the agri part is very important and much work need to be done. But I don’t understand why you should say it’s “sacrificed” as if budget allocation to agri has been cut. That’s not the case.
                ==============================================
                ***Did you really see some good agri programs out there? Like farm modernizations (I saw what Korina did but it was clearly politically driven) and capital investments? That is why I agree with Mar’s platform on this one but why he did not implement or broach it before to the president is beyond me. He was working as a venture capitalist!.

                I will list some good programs for me.

                1. Capital loans or venture capitalism. — yeah we have bank loans but it’s quite different.
                2. Green revolution – empty idle lands should be loaned to whoever (filipino individuals) wants to plant short term food crops even if the land is in the middle of the city.
                3. Farming (fish, cattle, plant) or gardening should be incorporated in all curricula to encourage the population to become farmers.
                4. A very accessible repository of farming materials/knowledges should established in at least every city where a showcase of it’s capabilities will be displayed. It should be glamorized or at least advertised. They will conduct educational tours for the public daily. This will be highly benefit our poor low educated population to become a farmer because they are armed with knowledge.
                5. Canning technology should be also pushed for some identified areas. It will be made accessible to small time fishermen and hog raisers so that during bountiful season they can just store it. This will also regulate prices of fish and make affordable canned products. Of course they need to pay. Regulating the price of fish will be beneficial to their sons and daughters because their parents are earning a steady income.
                ***
                ==============================================
                *** OFW has nothing to do with GDP growth. — If that is what you believe but billions of dollars can spur businesses in the Ph. A good example will be his family will buy more products. Please see…

                http://www.rappler.com/business/economy-watch/103882-ph-gdp-2nd-quarter-growth-2015
                ***
                ==============================================
                BPO still has room for growth – what is so wrong with pushing it to its full potential.
                Do you know that for the first time, under this admin, Manufacturing is evolving into another engine of growth? — and there is no father of manufacturing — just secretaries doing what they are supposed to do, make the industry grow.
                ***
                So? we need to have more of it. copy Japan, China and Vietnam… Send promising students to study how they do it. Like how to design and make a smartphone or a boat or anything high value. Give them capital and make them companies. The U.S. Have grants and venture capitalist to back them. We have nil – zero -nada.
                ***
                ===============================================
                On federalism “—– As long as lobbying groups with self preservation interests are around plebiscites have a chance to be rigged”..
                I give up Cecil – so Referendums/plebiscite are out. It’s one man’s declaration of power for you.

                *** Agree to disagree*** but even if you are right on this one… we don’t need all of the reasons why we need the revolution.
                ===============================
                On Economic mismanagement —
                My comments “what is your complain to having the best GDP growth in the world for the last 5 years? –
                Your comments == “Best GDP growth based on 2 factors? You don’t want modern weapons and tech manufacturing here in the Philippines just like what China have accomplished in around 20 years? You don’t want food security?”
                You are not registering, so I’ll not pursue.

                On unmanageable national debt – “We do have the money now but still they are mismanaging our funds”…
                Come on Cecil, you can do better than that. Be specific, not hollow statements like that.
                ==========================
                *** Where have you been? We have a billion dollars loaned at a sad rate when it was better to invest it in our country. Heck even paying some of our loans with high interest will give us more returns for that money. And why do we have the reallocation of budget scandal (DAP dada di dap dap) ? because it is clearly a mismanagement of funds aside from the supposed budget bribes to senators just to bring down a chief justice. If the rumors are true that link below

                http://www.manilatimes.net/shouting-match-at-the-palace-a-warning-from-the-generals/219755/

                ***
                ==========================
                On Political Mis-management –
                My comments “Wait a minute, you mean Pnoy is responsible for this? Pls clarify what you mean”
                Your comments :
                “Yes… We have no PDAF but they only changed it to another name. We have the reallocation of funds scam.”
                – PDAF and DAF are different animals. SC said it’s illegal. It’s stopped, that’s it. There is no abuse. Even the courts said no body stole anything from DAF. What it means is in effect, the court will not allow the Executive to allocate urgent discretionary funds when its needed. Bottom line — people disadvantaged. You are happy with that.
                ==============================================
                *** Refer to link above ***
                ==============================================
                “We have the HKG bus and all sorts of blunder from this admin”
                Yes some mistakes do happen, some poor performances do happen. Are you telling me such things never happen in all other admin? But I do agree with you – Pnoy has a weakness — to slow to fire his people found wanting.

                “ They impeached the chief justice but they did not charge him so he is still free to roam around. Mind you I predicted many of the scenes in the impeachment complaint down to the mystery employee and the negotiated result. It really is like a badly scripted movie. It was in another forum though and unfortunately the database was wiped.”
                — Long story short, the man is gone. Take out the champagne. And congratulations to the Executive with the guts to take out a CJ. What does that demonstrate to the world? It’s not business as usual. We are serious about going after corruption — and that you are not happy with?
                ============================================
                *** Half cooked seriousness If the guy really plundered then put him to jail and really just a self- serving move. You have to do it to all violators also.
                ***
                ============================================

                Cecil, you come across as a smart guy. Sure you are entitle to your opinions. But I find you have too much negativity for an administration that has provided some rays of sunshine into the country. It’s slowly gaining respect from many other countries. Philippines stand poised to break out of the shambles it has been in since Marcos’ days. I predict it requires another 2 administration of the Pnoy calibre, better still if of higher standards, to get the country in good shape. Forget the ” I can do this in 3-6 months” notion. Elementary school kids may fall for that.
                =========================
                ***
                One thing going for Pnoy – He did continue good projects from the pasts admins but claiming all the credits is crazy and then blaming them for your misfortunes is super crazy. We need a Lee Kuan Yew type of president for the next 12 years.

                And no… we lost the respect of some countries because of our handling of the yolanda funds.

                Shanties for 90B anyone?
                ***
                =========================

              • chempo says:

                This blog is on the issue of 70% who voted for the loosing candidates go negative on the winner. I addressed your points for the negatives that you clearly showed. You took your discussions into other areas which I don’t want to get into, in deference to the subject matter of the blog. But some of your points are real negatives which for readership interest, I like to say something on.

                —Minimum salaries —- I am sympathetic, and I concur, to what you say about salary levels in Phils. On the other hand, I dont like the idea of govt imposing minimum salaries. Pricing should be a matter of market mechanisms. Govt interference is always bad. The problem of low salary trap in Phils is over-population. Yet there are people who will not support the RP agenda. To discuss this properly requires a whole separate blog. I just want to refer to Norway, Finland, Switzerland that you brought up. The kind of people deserves the kind of government. That brings us back to choosing wisely in May.

                — Agriculture — you provided some good ideas in great brevity. But I dont know if you are aware of the many other programs the govt has implemented over the last 5 years. But I agree agri is very important, for the fact of the huge population involved in this sector. But Phils has a very very big big problem in agri. The land is too broken up. There is no economies of scale. There cannot be investments in mechanisations to improve land use. This is the number one problem you have to solve before you can see food security in Phils.

                — BPO — you digressed into ideas for getting students into more knowledge-based training initiatives. I think TESDA is doing a great job. Do you know how many students they have helped through TESDA and job placements secured? Do you know they are getting into the skills that industries needed? Your idea of granting capital is too simplistic and unrealistic. There are no freebies in life.

                —- Loans — you are right on this point — access to fair capital is a big problem in Phils. I think Joe has a series of blogs on Banking and this is one issue that would have been discussed.

                Some of the points you raised are valid, but let’s not dump negatives on a winning candidate. Let’s help build the Phils by giving support to those doing good work. It’s a very tough job and needs time to implement, nurture, educate, fine-tune, fund etc. Support those with the management skills to push the good work through. Not those who come tromping in and promise with one swipe of their hands, all the ills will go away.

              • cecil says:

                chempo says:
                March 23, 2016 at 3:03 pm
                This blog is on the issue of 70% who voted for the loosing candidates go negative on the winner. I addressed your points for the negatives that you clearly showed. You took your discussions into other areas which I don’t want to get into, in deference to the subject matter of the blog. But some of your points are real negatives which for readership interest, I like to say something on.

                —Minimum salaries —- I am sympathetic, and I concur, to what you say about salary levels in Phils. On the other hand, I dont like the idea of govt imposing minimum salaries. Pricing should be a matter of market mechanisms. Govt interference is always bad. The problem of low salary trap in Phils is over-population. Yet there are people who will not support the RP agenda. To discuss this properly requires a whole separate blog. I just want to refer to Norway, Finland, Switzerland that you brought up. The kind of people deserves the kind of government. That brings us back to choosing wisely in May. === Nope interference is not always bad and I assure you all kinds of government do it for the sake of their constituents. And it is also a fact that government was invented by man to be more organized and to implement the will of the majority and in our case the winning majority even though Joeam noted that it is a farce majority.

                — Agriculture — you provided some good ideas in great brevity. But I dont know if you are aware of the many other programs the govt has implemented over the last 5 years. But I agree agri is very important, for the fact of the huge population involved in this sector. But Phils has a very very big big problem in agri. The land is too broken up. There is no economies of scale. There cannot be investments in mechanisations to improve land use. This is the number one problem you have to solve before you can see food security in Phils. ======================================
                *** If we did have those ideas you are trying to imply then I say with conviction that it was a big failure for it brought us negative growth.
                ======================================
                — BPO — you digressed into ideas for getting students into more knowledge-based training initiatives. I think TESDA is doing a great job. Do you know how many students they have helped through TESDA and job placements secured? Do you know they are getting into the skills that industries needed? Your idea of granting capital is too simplistic and unrealistic. There are no freebies in life.
                ==============================================
                *** Tesda is doing a great job of making our youth become somebody else’s worker. Did you notice that the OFW’s literally built the middle east. You see venture capitalism is different and the grant system of the U.S. is a very good example of govt. support. If we have somebody here in the PH with a very good idea that can be easily implemented then we have to support him else it will just die without seeing the light of day. AFAIK we could have had the first filipino made computer a long time ago. The manufacturer is a very good scientist with many patents to his credit in the U.S. but it was unsupported.
                ========================================

                —- Loans — you are right on this point — access to fair capital is a big problem in Phils. I think Joe has a series of blogs on Banking and this is one issue that would have been discussed.

                Some of the points you raised are valid, but let’s not dump negatives on a winning candidate. Let’s help build the Phils by giving support to those doing good work. It’s a very tough job and needs time to implement, nurture, educate, fine-tune, fund etc. Support those with the management skills to push the good work through. Not those who come tromping in and promise with one swipe of their hands, all the ills will go away.
                ========================

                *** I am not dumping negatives… Those were facts. And if you read my previous posts I am for a positive outlook barring proof. This means that without facts I tend to project the positive outcome of a situation so that it promote more optimistic thinking.

              • chempo says:

                Cecil you lack substance in most of your points. And it’s difficult to discuss with someone who just dumps general propositions. Give me facts and figure, like I showed you unemployment charts.
                Here are some of the points that I think are difficult to contend with :

                “Tesda is doing a great job of making our youth become somebody else’s worker. ”
                — I see Tesda youths getting meaningful jobs and putting bread on the table for their families.

                “Did you notice that the OFW’s literally built the middle east”
                — I see the Middle East (and many other countries) giving jobs to Filipinos in search of jobs to feed their families.

                “…we could have had the first filipino made computer a long time ago. The manufacturer is a very good scientist with many patents to his credit in the U.S. but it was unsupported..”
                —This observation of your is typical of your mindset. Pick on some little teenie weenie bit of info and blow everything out of context. If you are refeering to Diosdado P. Banatao, let me set the record straight:–
                – 1. He did not make any computers. His great contribution was only in one specific — he was the first to design the single chip. In case you do not know, the chips is only one single aspect of a computer. It’s great talent, but dont give him all the credit.
                – 2. After his masters, he worked in NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR — there, I shouted it. He was no “Father” of semiconductor — it was there long before his time. He contributed a lot in the technology, that’s true. BUT EVERY IDEA IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS ALWAYS COMES IN INCREMENTAL STAGES, each genius take the idea from someone before him and move it forward. You might wish to describe him as the one to serve the food that others cooked as you aptly described above..
                – 3. He studied in the US, earned his spurs there, in the process rubbed shoulders with great minds in Silicon Valley, worked there….and pursued his dreams there.
                – 4. If he had come back to Philippines and get the govt to support him, he would have failed. WHY? The reason is very simple. Silicon Valley is where the action is. Can one flourish with a bangus deboning business in USA?
                – 5. It’s not a simple case of manufacturing computers. You need a whole echelon of support industry behind it. And the educational support was not there. I won’t go into this, cos I can’t convince you. I have been this business from the inside. Been involved in just one tine process — manufacturing the disk dirves. Philippines simply never had that capability at the time.
                Cecil, it’s easy to over simplify.

                “You see venture capitalism is different and the grant system of the U.S. is a very good example of govt. support”
                — I dont see your point of venture capitalism. Surely you are not contradicting yourself? Venture capitalist will come in lots of Filipinos somebody’s workers? That was you beef.
                — Grant system — no comments on the US grants cos I don’t know. But I know grants in many places over the world have been badly abused. — Anything that is free and easy is always abused. Human nature.

                On minimum salaries — “Nope interference is not always bad and I assure you all kinds of government do it for the sake of their constituents”

                There are many reasons why raising minimum wages is counter productive. There have been research papers on this subject vs your…opinion. The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank organisation has this to say:
                – it would result in job loss
                – it would hurt low-skilled workers
                – it would have little effect on reducing poverty
                – it may result in higher prices for consumers.
                Here’s the link to help you… http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/four_reasons_not_to_raise_the_minimum_wage.pdf

                I’ll give you 2 simple example —
                If wages go up, SM may reduce counter cashiers from 6 to 5.
                If wages go up, companies may automate a bit more and reduce manual work.

                In the real world, it’s all a balancing act. To improve wages, there is a whole lot of structural changes required in the economy. It’s not one presidential candidate wake up one day and say I’ll increase minimum wage.

                Prices (salaries is a price of labour) are best letf to market forces, that would result in more efficient allocation of resources. Would you that the govt also set the price for an apple? or a Mcdonald’s meal? If you are totally in favor of the govt’s interference in setting prices, boy you are in a wrong country. The only place in the world where prices are still set up govt is North Korea. The only party in the Philippines that would set prices for everybody, and oh year, reduce income equality drastically, lives deep in the Sierra Mountains and jungles.

              • Joe America says:

                Cecil has left the building. He is a sophisticated troll.

              • chempo says:

                That’s OK Joe, responses to him are not in vain. There are readers here who may need a good explanation to help them out.

            • cecil says:

              But that’s it Madla we cannot just let our contemporary people be oppressed by the despots and be content with the stability just because it does not hurt us and we are benefiting from said rule. We have to fight it even if all we can do is use words… We have to resists despots and if they are replaced with another type then it is the duty of the generation that faces them to removed them. The new warriors can at least get hope from history that somewhere somehow we ended a type oppression. I do agree that it will be easier to just become selfish and just go with flow and hope that somehow problems will fix it’s own.

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      I just tuned in at 6:24 pm. It hasn’t started yet!
      *****

    • Jonathan says:

      This debate will be an unmitigated disaster for somebody. I’m not sure yet who’ll that “somebody” will be – it may even be more than one party.

      • For Binay it IS a disaster inspite of the UNA-shirted clappers he brought with him in the audience – he is completely lost in this strong debate.

        The first round confirms my own personal ranking – Roxas is two steps ahead of Poe who is three steps ahead of Duterte. Roxas is amazingly strong and able to parry knowing his arguments exactly, Duterte’s saying he is repeating a tape recording a very weak parry.

        • It is continuing… Binay and taxes… how can he finance stuff?

          Binay is answering with “compensatory measures”… not convincing.

          • NHerrera says:

            I have not done the numbers. But the numbers will not compute well in his direction methinks. (This is something expected. If he has good numbers that support him his handlers would have given him the numbers to use.)

          • edgar lores says:

            *******
            The moderator is helpless. The candidates are talking over each other.
            *****

            • karlgarcia says:

              Yes,but this appears more of a debate than a talk /variety show like the last time.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                It’s a free-for-all, a melee.
                *****

              • karlgarcia says:

                Riot squad with shields are needed then,instead of referees or a basketball referee with a whistle.

              • karlgarcia says:

                It was a comedy show.
                While Binay is fighting it out with the network about allowing him to bring notes,they were entertaining the adience.

              • that is showing now… the pre-recorded stuff… Eat Bulaga with Digong, Grace and Mar.

              • Stream watchers down to 42 thousand from 47 thousand…

                but the debate was truly good and with a lot of significant content… someone who thinks THAT was a free for all has never been in a Filipino overseas association meeting.

              • karlgarcia says:

                on a related note about stopping or controlling something. Before the traffc cops were like Moses, they just raise their hands and even rampaging trucks stop.Nowadays,they have to go out of the way.

      • NHerrera says:

        Days before this Binay should have feigned coughing fit in his campaign and thus avoid this. This debate will not help him.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        As expected, the younger ones on my feed are either rooting for that Action Star or wishing The Sharpest Tongue be there. Of course and sadly, they see nothing positive about Roxas, basing on superficial impressions and third-hand information distorted by social media.

        • cecil says:

          If you are unbiased then you will see that not only the young ones are rooting for RRD but a whole lot of people from all walks of life, denomination, beliefs,intelligence and ages. If Mar really had a lot of undisputed accomplishments then he could have listed all of it and shown it to the public. Unfortunately said accomplishments were done by other people. He does have 1 thing going for him… he worked for venture capitalists and I would love to have it here in the Philippines.

          • Joe America says:

            I wrote somewhere this morning, perhaps Twitter, that people generally find what they look for and ignore that which does not confirm their starting bias. Oh, I remember the context now. I commented that the reader polls that showed different results than the formal SWS and Puls Asia surveys are more a reflection of the observer, than the candidates, for this “selective research and judgment”.

            http://technology.inquirer.net/45797/ramon-bautista-trumpets-roxas-achievements-amid-criticisms

            https://joeam.com/2015/03/15/mar-roxas-hands-on-innovative-and-productive-surprised/

            • cecil says:

              My reply did not post. Anyways I would love to answer your post however I dont have enough time and I already am going tired of it. But just to point out some facts… BPO’s INNODATA, ACCENTURE and SPI were already in the Philippines prior 1997. It is also a fact that a de Venecia son claimed the credits for the founding of said industry in the PH. Mar can only claim some credits for CAAP and not the whole industry! An analogy would be you have created the fastest car but you cannot claim the invention of the car.

              • chempo says:

                Nobody found any industry, BPO or any others. An industry just evolves.
                Frank Holz found the first BPO company in Phils — Accenture — 1992.
                Mar as secretary of DTI, 2000 realised the potential of BPO for Phils. He did what a good secretary is supposed to do — has a vision, help set the the stage for the industry to grow.
                Let’s give credit where its due.

              • cecil says:

                That’s it chempo… however the first BPO honor would go to INNODATA… somehow they erased a part of their history but you can still find an article by a complainant of one of their cases online.

              • Joe America says:

                Wait, wait, wait. You say no one has shown Mar Roxas achievements. I give you two sources, but you don’t have time to read them. Chempo explains how Roxas did his job well as Sec DTI and BPO got jump started as a result. You negate the argument by citing a call center, which is not the point. The point is that Mar Roxas was instrumental in getting theBPO business started, and has done much for the Philippines during his government service, but you hang on to the misrepresentation he has done nothing.

                I really don’t comprehend smart people who want to remain ignorant, for self justification. Really. It blows my mind. Intentionally seeking ignorance.

                Sounds like a good blog title. Look for in in about a week.I appreciate that you represented the idea for me.

              • cecil says:

                He did not jump start something that is already there… The BPO’s I listed were not call centers although Accenture has a call center (You may check that out). What I mean by indisputable achievement is one in which he is the principal author or driver of an original idea we still don’t have. Jumping to the bandwagon and making it faster is not one of them. A good example (I’m being biased here) would be the 911 of Duterte. Mar as head of DILG could have copied it and implemented it in the whole PH. Then he can claim that it is his accomplishment. The call centers and other BPO’s were already around and in full blast before MAR improved it a little. that is why he can claim a little part only and is the reason for all the opposition to his claims. It’s like I went to the market buy food, wash it, prepare it and cooked it but you served it to our family, can you claim cooking the food?

              • Joe America says:

                Sorry, cecil, I stopped listening to you a while back. You make zero sense to me, and I figure you are mainly here to peddle another pigs ear as a purse. You are civil, though, so I allow you to persist.

              • karlgarcia says:

                I can acknowledge that SPI global was here since 1980.
                Innodata and Andersen Consulting/Accenture started as Auditors then later evolved.

                Mar Roxas Put the Philippines in the BPO map.Did he claim to do so?
                Is it in his resume that he is the father of BPO,so what’s the fuss?

            • cecil says:

              Qoute from Joeam article

              “JoeAm: “Roxas, as Trade Secretary, formed the Call Center Association of the Philippines that energized the industry. To deny his role is to be in denial.”
              “[Roxas] saw and harnessed the potential of the Philippines as a global e-services hub. He launched ‘Make IT Philippines’ and organized the first IT-enabled services (ITES) to the US which inevitably led to the biggest global industry names to invest in the country . . .” [Inquirer profile of Senator Roxas]”

              What do you make of this paragraph Karl? specially the “organized the first IT-enabled services (ITES) to the US” <<<—-<< in your view and understanding… can he really claim it knowing we already have several big named BPO's serving it enabled services to the US ever since 1988?

              • Joe America says:

                Okay, cecil. You are wearing my patience now. You don’t accept that Mar Roxas was instrumental in facilitating the early growth of the BPO industry in Manila, in spite of all argument and fact to the contrary. Fine. You are entitled to your view. Now kindly advocate FOR your candidate in a positive manner or leave the blog. You are dumbing down the conversation.

              • Joe America says:

                @Karl, I have put cecil into moderation. As far as I can tell he is here much as the Chinese trolls were, to advocate a position in spite of all evidence and argument. This not the kind of discussion I imagine for the blog. You may respond to him if you choose, but the conversation will be managed from this point forward.

              • cecil says:

                Ok. I’ll leave the blog as you wish… but I was only sharing facts and as I said Mar can claim a portion of the success but no more. Anyways many thanks for your patience. No more words from me.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Ok Joe.
                I give up.

  7. NHerrera says:

    Handshaking among Duterte, Poe and Roxas at debate end; but Binay walked and went past them. Apparently still smarting from the three?

  8. manangbok says:

    “Specific to the Philippines, the high-speed youth . . . we are talking about voters here . . . ARE aware of the poverty, inefficiency and congestion that surround them. And they easily conclude that this must be the fault of the current government. So they want “change”. They don’t want continuity and stability. They have no idea about the work actually being done, they only see what they face.”

    Hmmm … “the high-speed youth”, I would imagine, make up big chunk of a lot of societies today (like in the Middle East, for example), not only in the Philippines.

    I like that term, by the way, because it kinda reflects what may be different from the youth that were born in at the turn of the millenia compared to the youth that were born in your generation. Maybe another term to describe the youth should be “hyperaware” but “lacking in discernment”. Knowledge courtesy of the internet, mass and social media is easier to come by than the wisdom needed in sifting the grain from the chaff.

    The thing is … young people’s actions and/or decisions are usually reactions to the way our “elders” have acted in the past. We are either rebelling against you or are trying to emulate you. In either case, we usually do it with “exuberance” (i.e we either rebel exuberantly or copy you exuberantly).

    The best fun in being a kid is getting a rise from my elders.

    • Joe America says:

      Hyperaware but lacking discernment. Beautiful characterization. Truly. Rather than rebelling or emulating, better to build something. Create and hold to humanitarian values rather than skate the surface looking for an easy path. Discover something helpful. My thoughts. Thanks for inspiring them, “Kid”. 🙂

  9. Madlanglupa says:

    > They don’t want continuity and stability. They have no idea about the work actually being done, they only see what they face.

    It is this disturbing mentality that makes me wonder about my generation, and the generation before that: where did we go wrong? What led them to become superficially judgmental and expecting too much, that they’re pledging their support to these “quick-fix” candidates who rely more on sarcasm, brute power or wit?

    • Joe America says:

      The superficiality of judgment is a global trend derived from the ease of easy judgments on social media. In the Philippines, it is aggravated by an educational system that does not really inspire original thought. Original thought is needed to get beyond the obvious, or what is on the TV.

      Thanks for helping me to form a core idea for the blog that LCPl_X has been hounding me to do about “upbringing”, or how kids are raised in the Philippines.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        No prob.

        Sir, I’ve been educated in public schools, but most of what I learned was self-taught. What I noted about public schools is that much of the curricula and packages I’ve seen seems to be dated back from the 50s or even pre-war, and in those decades little have changed in terms on how to improve teaching, make children get more engaged and speak out their minds, encourage original thought… it’s still very much orthodox rote learning as opposed to some of the progressive yet expensive private schools that use different unconventional techniques to teach kids with the ability to think critically and creatively.

        Which leaves us a massive educational gap here, and the Internet isn’t helping things by providing the impressionable and gullible with misinformation and hoaxes, which gives crooked candidates an advantage in controlling the population and manipulating their opinions in this time of elections based on personality; “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” as Orwell writes.

      • “Thanks for helping me to form a core idea for the blog that LCPl_X has been hounding me to do about “upbringing”, or how kids are raised in the Philippines.”

        I take offense to that, Joe—- I prefer nudge. 😉

  10. Taas-kamay (raise hands, no comments) results:

    – nobody for divorce

    – Binay and Duterte want to bury Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

    I don’t remember if there was a third “raise hands” on anything..

    http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/kaharian-ng-kababalaghan/ – bank secrecy was NOT a topic.

    Binay did however tell Poe that the money from Danding was already gone and she answered quite quickly and smartly – do you know that from Philrem? Roxas was fast and tough in answers. His defense of what he did during Yolanda versus Duterte was excellent, Duterte totally cornered.

    • Micha says:

      Grace Poe indirectly admitted the P81 billion intended to be returned to coconut farmers may have already been gone. Where in the world did it go?

    • Purita_Manegro says:

      The only part I saw … on death penalty – Poe and Duterte raised hands and tried to explain

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      The silence on divorce shows the tight hold of the Catholic Church on Filipino minds.
      *****

      • Joe America says:

        Duterte and Poe raised their hands FOR the death penalty. Binay and Roxas did not.

        Catholicism here is peculiar. I don’t think it is “minds” that are in play, but the spirit that encompasses a whole lot of things, from superstition to hope. I’m still working on understanding it (see forthcoming blog), but see objection to divorce as similar to self-flagellation, a willingness to accept the pains (e.g., hypocrisy of mistresses, theft, etc.) in order to prove faith.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          The analogy seems appropriate. No divorce and if no money — which means no sex — may result in mortification of the flesh.
          *****

          • manangbok says:

            “mortification of the flesh” — what a ghastly imagery that is 🙂

            In any case, I don’t know if “peculiar” would be an enough word to describe Catholicism in the Philippines. I say this because I am currently immersed in the “peculiar” varieties of Islam in the Middle East.

            The way a society practices its religion is informed not so much by dogma but by culture and history.

            I agree with Mr. J, Filipinos practice Catholicism in a non-cerebral way — hence we cannot care less about Vatican II or the liturgies handed down by the cardinals and bishops. But we feel that we are “doing something right” when we walk in the scorching sun and flagellate ourselves during the Holy Week; or wade among the mob of people wanting to touch the Nazarene’s image in Quiapo in January; or go on pilgrimages in Our Lady of this-and-that even if we do not understand the rationale of what we are doing.

            On the other hand, we are ambivalent about divorce — we “want” it for its convenience but we “kinda agree” with the priest who tell us that it is wrong for “no man can put asunder what God has bound together” — or some such (dare I say it?) crap 🙂 And we agree with Reproductive Health but we don’t want to be publicly associated with it. And we frown on premarital/extramarital sex — but a lot of us do it all the time.

            These are why (among other things) it is so much more fun in the Philippines 🙂

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Don’t you find it strange that a Mabini lawyer who defended human rights victims under Marcos would now bestow the greatest of posthumous honors upon the late dictator?

      This is a Faustian turn.

      I recall Binay was tasked with finding out what to do with Marcos’ corpse, and he recommended that the dictator be buried in Ilocos with full military honors. Bongbong denied agreeing to the Ilocos burial, and PNoy rejected burial with full military honors.

      Now Binay would welcome a full hero’s burial.

      I am not sure who is the greater villain though, Binay or Duterte. The thinking of both have “no limits.” But Binay seems to be the more desperate… as with his attempt to cheat and break the debate rules.

      As an aside, if PNoy had categorically rejected a hero’s burial in 2011 as proposed by Escudero (?), we might not be seeing a Marcos renascence.
      *****

      • Madlanglupa says:

        > Don’t you find it strange that a Mabini lawyer who defended human rights victims under Marcos would now bestow the greatest of posthumous honors upon the late dictator?

        Sad and funny that Binay lives up to the Nietzsche warning to all would-be heroes: he fought a monster, yet he ended up as one.

  11. Binay insisted on using the notes he brought to the debate, so much time was wasted on waiting for him to appear and on the debate re using notes which Comelec has already ruled to be forbidden, still he insisted on using his notes based on the wrong info he got from moderator Luchie of TV 5. Is she now the authority? Is a lawyer supposed to follow a rule which was already made clear before? He tried to insist on following the wrong info just because he is VP? Not mindful of the rules from the authority…very clear. Comelec Chair B should have put his foot down from the start and not prolonged that debate on notes.

    Binay and Poe are not mindful of times alloted to each of them to pose the Q, to answer, to rebut and to counter rebut. Poe is so excited to rebut she often interrupt while others are still speaking within their alloted time.

    The seemingly free for all, the melee came from those who don’t respect the rules.

    Binay and Poe revealed their characters.

    • Vicara says:

      There’s a large number of Filipino voters who will gladly tolerate a plunderer as a political candidate so long as that candidate exudes confidence and appears to command the situation.

      Tonight, Binay seemed incapable of doing either; he was just a sullen, two-bit lawyer panicking without his last-minute cram notes.

      • Yep, somebody who carries himself confidently even while talking complete nonsense is seen as “magaling” or capable by many Filipinos. I wonder about the statistics how many Filipinos watched it… and about how the next survey numbers will look like.

        • karlgarcia says:

          I attended my son’s recognition day yesterday,and the Pricipal begged our indulgence for the delays,and said not to worry,it won’t be that long,like the debates.Everybody laughed.
          The delays were news,and Binay’s paawa that he was ganged up,did not work.I think.

  12. Niteowl says:

    How the voting Filipinos will take this assessment will reflect their true individual character ! Observations on how they react to a foreigner’s objectivity on the candidates and the voters are so predictable. Filipinos will never admit their mistakes and their shortcomings. Never, for them it’s an admission of defeat ! They rather throw the blame on someone more visible! Little do they know that admitting their mistake or gullibility is one big step to change and success. Maybe we need an expertise on psychological human behavior to discern the true Filipino mentality. I can only guess, Filipinos assimilated everything that was bad from all colonizers to rebel in silence. In later years, they learn to talk and express their grievances but still too timid to act for fear of social and religious entities clashing on them. Their fear of being a social outcast is more greater than their fear of corruptions! Moral ethics and national conscience have long been twisted but I am still hoping for the few to regain them ….
    I say, you got this article right on the target!

    • Joe America says:

      Gud am, Niteowl. Fine description, yourself. My favorite takeaway is “Their fear of being a social outcast is . . . greater than their fear of corruptions!” In fact, I’m going to pop that into my twitter feed later this morning.

      • manangbok says:

        “Their fear of being a social outcast is . . . greater than their fear of corruptions!”

        Sometimes, I think, that there is a great deal of hypocrisy about Filipinos’s attitude towards corruption. It’s like “corruption is bad if it doesn’t benefit you” but if it puts food on your table or buy you a hacienda in Batangas, well then “c’est la vie!”

        Why is that, I wonder? Aside from Beck’s List of Cognitive Distortions, are there other ways to explain the Filipino mentality? (hi Amy!)

    • cecil says:

      I see you that you are well meaning but as per Micha posted; most of us filipinos are just imitating the american trash dumped on us… isn’t it best to “correct’ them first in the hope that it will ripple down to the Ph? Do you really think the filipinos cannot handle their own problems with the right leaders? We have a very good example of a world class citizenry in Mindanao so it means we can do it alone.

      • karlgarcia says:

        You mean “world class citizenry”in your part of Mindanao.

        On handling own problems.

        Let us first discuss defense and national security.We have been trying to contain and handle our own problems for the last few decades, the strongman rule failed to contain it and it even worsen it. the peaceful approach is still trying to contain it.

        True,there are always outside advise either coming from the Arabs,Malaysia,america,Brits,Dutch,Germans,etc.
        Now on external defense,I do not agree that we can do it alone,even if we match the military strength if taiwan and Singapore.

        Bangladesh,had a love hate relationship with India,now they are back together,because of a bigger problem which is the ISI.
        India is reaching out to its neighbors,because some are turning to China like Myanmar,maybe it was India’s fault for neglecting them.

        On handling other matters like disasters.
        We can not isolate our selves from the rest of the world and Yolanda must have thaught us that it is OK to ask for help and it is OK to accept help.

        • cecil says:

          Let us first discuss defense and national security.We have been trying to contain and handle our own problems for the last few decades, the strongman rule failed to contain it and it even worsen it. the peaceful approach is still trying to contain it. ====== We had been fooled for so long by americans. They had been always here and we were made to dance on strings like puppets. Sad to say that they had a hand in creating all the letter and other insurgents in the Philippines. They did it directly and indirectly as per one american who was assigned in Jolo Sulu admitted ( I forgot his name). The mechanism is like of that Binladen group which they admitted.

          True,there are always outside advise either coming from the Arabs,Malaysia,america,Brits,Dutch,Germans,etc.
          Now on external defense,I do not agree that we can do it alone,even if we match the military strength if taiwan and Singapore. ======= We cannot match them with our current state and it is unwise for us to do so at this moment. We have to follow the recipe of China, Korea and even Vietnam. We have to strengthen our basics like Education, Food security, Manufacturing and let defense slowly grow as soon as we have the capacity. We have to have a joint national effort to do it. The modernization of the AFP cannot be accomplished without the basics and it was proven in many countries who have a defense first policy.

          Bangladesh,had a love hate relationship with India,now they are back together,because of a bigger problem which is the ISI.
          India is reaching out to its neighbors,because some are turning to China like Myanmar,maybe it was India’s fault for neglecting them.

          On handling other matters like disasters.
          We can not isolate our selves from the rest of the world and Yolanda must have thaught us that it is OK to ask for help and it is OK to accept help. ========= Disasters can be partly blamed to our people (Human error). We cannot just blame it all to nature. We had been warned a long time ago by intelligent planners. For example the use of lands for housing but it was actually dangerous because it might be flooded (Ondoy). The non-release of water in dams even though water is rising fast. We have to plan big so we need a can do politician.

          • karlgarcia says:

            We had this continuing discussion about history over Irineo Salazar’s blogsite.
            here are two examples
            http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/general-mcarthurs-debacle/
            http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/the-commonwealth-army-part-i-beginnings/

            Ever since,the priority was education over any spending including military spending.

            Neda had plans for our economy.

            We have Agricultural Fisheries and Modernization law passed during the late ninties.It can not be implemented because of budgetary constraints due to priority of paying our creditors,paying our huge bureaucracy.If a can do president can do that in sixmonths,Halleluia.

            oops it was crime that he promised to stop in six months,my bad.

            On other points you mention,like planning,preparedness,etc.
            There were tough lessons learned.All we have to show everyone is that we actually learned from them.

            • cecil says:

              Correct except on the we don’t have money stuff. We even loaned a billion dollars at a sad rate. The Philippines is awash with money but we are not using it correctly. this is also the reason why we seem to be bullet proofed against regional and global market crashes.

              • karlgarcia says:

                I hope you have read the modern monetary theory article by Micha.we had several debates on wether taxation and revenues are important,or can we just print away all our problems?

                After the revolutionary government that you are agreeing to, and defaulting on our obligations.
                Transacting with everyone would be very very expensive, our credit ratings would be junk.

                that will make the consequences of not amending the Anti Money laundering,just like a tickle compared to the consequences on defaulting on our obligations.

                Even if it is the fault of the oligarchs,then and now,we have to pay our debt.

              • cecil says:

                Yes… the consequences are in fact huge in the wildest imagination we can conjure… but even in cases like these… there are still friendly governments that will help a young revolutionary government provided of course they see that we are on the right track.

  13. NHerrera says:

    The Second Presidential debate is over and I re-read your article. I was trying to see the elements of a bigger picture that you may have missed in your assessment of the coming election or see the positive side to it but I failed. The factors,

    – your high-speed or equivalently manangbok’s hyperaware but discernment-short description of the sizeable voting youth; and

    – the realistic negativity that will come from some 70% of those who did not vote for the winning President

    will indeed hamper the work of that President whoever that will be, varying perhaps in small degrees; and thus not good for the country.

    You put me in this unhappy mood because I saw the antics of Binay on the Comelec debate rule not to use notes or bring documents and during the debate proper; and Duterte’s — “if you are not prepared to kill as President, then you are weak and are not fit to be President” or some such words.

    Such behavior from a probable President coupled with your article seems to be mix not conducive to making one’s day. (Today is one of my non-positive day.)

    • NHerrera says:

      But I have to admit the day has touched my funny bone when Roxas in arguing about the no notes allowed rule on the debate said to Binay — if I know that that is the rule I would have come equipped with the COA report (on Binay’s corruption). I thought that was a sharp retort.

    • Joe America says:

      Pick yourself up, buckeroo, it was a night of passions and, if you tilt your head left and squint, the way democracy is supposed to work. Everything was out on the table last night, personalities, thought processes, policies such as they are, and character. It’s much better for people to get it straight like that than interpreted through the media. If you need rebalancing, pull up a video of one of the earlier US Republican debates. Much the same. It is what it is, and that is not boring, for sure . . .

      • Purita_Manegro says:

        After I returned from praying while walking with my olive branch I saw a lot of tweets and updates on how disappointed they were of the debate and on how that made them see who is the best candidate to vote … I’ve seen the first debate and I have yet to see this second one but judging from what I read and snippets of what I saw online, except carefully selected to be witty or not, someone better has emerged as the best to continue the rise of the Philippines to what it is thought and ought to be … I just wonder tomorrow if my choice is the one that emerged, that is after I watch the replay!

        As always Joe you give us a very insightful, polarizing and witty topic … the wit does not remain yours but the thread here too!

        • Joe America says:

          I’m glad you appreciate the article, Purita. I followed the debate on television and twitter (during commercial breaks). There are several ways to look at it. One, checking how a favored candidate did (one can find ammunition supporting him/her). The other is to see the debate as a cultural phenomenon (starting late; different personalities on the stage). The other way is as a democratic event (in that context, it was excellent). Twitter is fun. I’t like sitting in the living room and listening as people pop off.

          • Purita_Manegro says:

            That goes to show how reactive we are … the clicking nation, in giving our two cents of every topic that is discussed 🙂 I never can get used to it (gladly)!

            I will keep an open mind and watch it as if I am new to the Philippine politics and wanting to see what the future holds with the emerging key bearer.

            Looking forward to the next article Joe… the day had ended for me, now I need my beauty rest.
            Ciao!

  14. manuelbuencamino says:

    Joe,

    I too fear trouble if the winning candidate does not win by a large margin. Right now polls indicate that whoever wins will win with a slim margin. Slim enough for losers not to accept defeat. So I’m hoping that by the end of April one of the candidates, it does not matter who, breaks away from the pack. We need a clear winner.

    If there is no clear winner, I fear the paper receipts mandated by the Court can add to the potentially explosive situation. From what I understand, the paper receipts will be kept in a bin at the precinct. What for? What happens if there is a protest, will the paper receipts be given more weight than the actual ballots?

    Forget for now what will happen if the wrong candidate wins. The consequence of the wrong candidate winning will unfold over time.

    What calls for attention is the immediate aftermath of the election. If the results are contested, and depending how it is contested – whether through the legal process or through the street – it is probable that the gains of the past six years will be lost in a matter of weeks if not days.

    • Joe America says:

      Gadzooks, you are scaring me now, MB. That is a real possibility, though, on a battle this tight and with supporters who are downright belligerent. Rather like the Gore/Bush Florida battle a while back. COMELEC has not done their job well, I think. I get the feeling of fly-by-night-and-day decisions, and an agency that does not listen to others very well. I hope it does not come to a street fight. A lot depends on the candidates themselves, and how they would respond to a contested finding.

      • Edgar Lores says:

        *******
        I think the Judiciary has done a worse job than Comelec… in that the Poe decision has been open to question and the receipt decision is a little too late.

        • Joe America says:

          True. I feel another blog on the judiciary creeping up . . . unless someone beats me to it.

          • caliphman says:

            I would be interested to learn if that blog on the judiciary appears whether things here will be like at CPM where those who are less qualified or knowledgeable about the law are the most vocal in declaring what it says or means. It seems that many bloggers base the latter or their judgement of the judiciary mainly on whether it favors the agenda of their favored candidate. Anyone even the lowly sidewalk street vendor has the right to voice his personal opinion about the judiciary or vote the candidate of his choosing but it is very clear written in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final and ultimate say on judicial issues. Whether their decisions are popular or not, that is not the criteria on which they are supposed to base their decisions and not how they are judged. I am willing to debate this issue at length with anyone who claims it should be otherwise based on our system of gov ernment.

            • Joe America says:

              I haven’t written it yet, but it will be a layman’s view, for I am not an attorney, but it will consider things like influences other than the law, which involves personal or political perspectives that each judge brings to the table. It will also likely talk about what it takes to get speed into the courts.

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              I have no wish to debate. 🙂 But…

              My view: the Supreme Court may have the final say but its decisions, while to be respected, may be questioned by anybody, whether lawyers or laymen.

              Raul Palabrica, at Inquirer, just cast doubt on the Poe decision as half-baked.

              http://opinion.inquirer.net/93943/half-baked-sc-decision-poe

              Baycas at CPM, who I understand is not a lawyer, has been critical as well of the Poe decision on the question of what constitutes the majority on the issues of citizenship and residency.

              Certainly, law is a highly specialized subject that requires years of education… and an intimate knowledge of the history of law, the rules of law, the methodologies and so forth.

              But each man possesses a natural sense of justice as well as the capacity to reason, and therefore should be able to express his disagreement with the final decisions of the Court.

              Supreme Courts have been known to reverse themselves here and abroad. In the US, for example, I get the impression that the legal views on abortion are under constant upheaval. In the US, abortion is allowed under certain circumstances and here it is considered a crime under any circumstance.

              Law is not absolute. (E.g. the Aguinaldo doctrine.)

              I submit the Judiciary, as much as the Executive, should not have, nor be given, an absolute dictatorial rule.

              And people should be allowed to freely express their opinion — before and after — final judicial decisions.

              Supreme Court justices are not infallible.
              *****

              • chempo says:

                Edgar, in the few Pilippines legal cases here that I have observed, and some others that I googled, and I don’t know if ever in the legal history here, has there ever been situations where the judiciary interpret an event based on “a reasonable mind”. Take for eg Philrem delivering millions of pesos to Weikang Xu and M/s Bautista it was on verbal instructions from the branch manager. No reasonable man would have believed her tall tale. So given the lack of any other evidence, a British court would throw her evidence out on the basis of “a reasonable mind”. This ‘reasonableness’ thing is a big deal in British courts. The court recognises that the ordinary man has a mind, and deference and weight ought to be given to this and not to the letter of the law in special situations when everything is not in black and white.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                I have encountered the concept. It has to do with the “legal burden of proof” and is a lower standard than, say, “substantial evidence,” “preponderance of the evidence,” “clear and convincing evidence,” and “beyond reasonable doubt.”

                I searched the Chan Robles library and it came out with 4,650 hits. I am not sure whether this is a high or a low frequency.

                I looked at the first one, an opinion by Justice Brion, about a seaman who set himself on fire when caught stealing. And I quote: “The question that invites scrutiny is whether the LA and the NLRC s conclusion (that Moradas acts of allegedly pilfering and causing the flood in the engine room prompted him to commit an act of sabotage which backfired into his own burning) is by itself an adequate conclusion of a reasonable mind. According to the ponencia, it is not contrary to human experience or logic for a spurned man to resort to tactics of desperation, however ludicrous or extreme those tactics may be, as in this case.”

                “I am completely at a loss on how the ponencia could have disagreed with the CA. In the natural order of things, man follows the instinct of self-preservation. The Court may take judicial notice of the fact that our seafarers endure the hardships of sea work not only for their own survival, but of the family or families they left behind. Hence, the conclusion that one not only injured himself but actually willfully set himself ablaze must stand out from the evidence presented.”

                “As the CA did, I do not see any logical or causal connection between the charges of stealing and the acts of sabotage, on one hand and the self-inflicted burning that Moradas allegedly committed, on the other hand. It is simply contrary to human nature and experience for Moradas to set himself ablaze because he was caught stealing the ship s supplies.”

              • NHerrera says:

                Thanks for the Palabrica link. I read his opinion and it struck me as a “reasonable” commentary on the matter of the confusion engendered on the public — lawyers or laymen — and the need to clarify. He was not necessarily siding with the Sereno or Carpio side of the fence, but Palabrica’s call, in my opinion, was for taking the opportunity provided by the MR for the SC to clarify, not only for the sake of the public, but for the sake of the Judiciary itself. (Palabrica is a lawyer, isn’t it?)

              • Joe America says:

                Hahaha, I will take your typo as a Freudian slip, referring to the lawyer as an “it”. I wholeheartedly agree with the description, as most seem devoid of any human emotion whatsoever, and who knows about gender these days. 🙂

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Yes, Palabrica is a lawyer. Strange but in Google the term “solicitor” appears under his name. I don’t believe this term was in vogue before, and “lawyer” was applied generically to all “attorneys.” However, we now have a Solicitor General (in Hilbay). Solicitor must be a higher class of lawyers.
                *****

              • NHerrera says:

                Hahaha. I thought you don’t spell check and all that. Glad I didn’t use “it” for the SC. Otherwise I may be in trouble. I have to mind my pronouns from now on.

              • caliphman says:

                Edgar, if Carpio has the right to publicly disagree with the official SC decision, we should all have the same right to do so.He does not claim that his opinion has the force of law and while it does not, it forces the Supreme Court to affirm and clarify if it is ruling or not that Poe is qualified to merely run but actually be president of the republic. I would be surprised if it confirms the latter issue as it conflicts with constitutional provision stating the PET is the sole body empowered to rule on this issue after the election and assuming Poe is the winner. The constitution also specifies that any losing candidate can file a quo warrranto case with the PET is that candidate garners half a million votes or more. Which is not to say that the SC decision on the MR might in fact confirm Poe’s eligibility to become president because in its current findings, it stated that Comelec needed to have an authorized and competent court, ie. the Supreme Court, rule on Poe’s eligibility in order to use it as a basis for canceling her COC. Can it legally do that? They could but there would have to be an explanation as to why it would not conflict with the afore mentioned constitutional provisions.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                I agree the situation is very muddled.

                Carpio’s disagreement was in a dissenting opinion. So that’s… acceptable.

                Does his disagreement force the Supreme Court to “affirm and clarify” its ruling? I don’t believe so… at least not before the election.

                But “public opinion” (read IBP, Palabrica and CPM) posits that the SC decision is infirm.

                The immediate repercussion is the raising of an MR… which the SC is likely to reject. I think we agree on this. The voting should be along the lines of the original decision. It would take a very brave justice to change his opinion midstream, and that would simply be inviting brickbats to shower upon his head.

                Is the rejection of the MR likely to confirm Poe’s eligibility? No, I think it will only confirm Poe’s right to run.

                The non-immediate repercussion is that, as you note, should Poe win… there will be a high chance of a quo warranto petition before the PET. Binay, for one, is sure to file a protest to protect his ill-gotten gains.

                I think the issues of citizenship and residency will be finally decided by the PET… again as you note. I agree. The decision may take years (per Santiago vs. Ramos?). So in the meantime, there will be a sworn-in president… who may not be eligible to sit as one. I would expect though that the PET decision — whether sooner or later — will be in Poe’s favor. The decision will be sooner if Poe’s winning margin is sizable… and if only to avoid years of national instability.

                In the meantime, Congress will enact and pass a law granting NBFC to foundlings.

                As NHerrera notes, my crystal ball is very dusty. I see two, maybe three, hairline cracks in it.
                *****

              • caliphman says:

                The constitution does in fact state that the Supreme Court is the ultimate and final authority in resolving judicial and legal issues. No self- respecting lawyer or justice would question that. People like Baycas and others at CPM who hold themselves out as legal experts at that site are unfortunately influenced by the very strong anti-Poe bias in that site which often leads them astray and into errors in their legal views. I only comment there once in a while when those errors are egregious and only because I know Baycas has enough intellectual integrity to change his positions if they are clearly shown to be flawed. The others? I have difficulty having any professional respect for them because their postings are primarily ad hominem attacks in nature or are so far off base legally its not worth commenting on. It is a travesty that the same voices clamoring that the Constitution and not the ballot box be followed in determining whether Poe is qualified or not are now the very same voices questioning the Supreme Court and its decisions because it is very unpopular with anti-Poe and pro-Roxas supporters.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                The Constitution does say that, and it is true to a very large extent. But as I said law is not absolute and justices are not infallible. Did not JoeAm just say that democracy is noisy? The alternative, as history shows, is far worst.
                *****

              • caliphman says:

                http://opinion.inquirer.net/87573/disqualification-suit-vs-poe

                Ever wonder if craw tastes just like chicken? Perhaps Atty. Palabrica should be the one to ask since he is a culinary expert on what is half baked and unprocessed views.

            • caliphman says:

              That is the very same Palabrica who pontificated in his PDI column that the SET should find Poe ineligible due to residency issues and retracted his piece the next day after another poster and I commented that internal SET rules explicitly excluded everything but citizenship issues could be covered in a quo warranto case. His excuse, this lawyer and journalist claimed he had been misinformed. Seriously??? A lawyer who does not know rules of court and a writer who does not check his facts….hmmmm.

          • manuelbuencamino says:

            Joe,

            I guess my fears about the paper receipts are not unfounded. A poll watchdog group has bigger plans for the receipts.

            Check this out from the Inquirer

            “Electronic cheating will be more difficult this coming May 9 polls following the Supreme Court’s unanimous vote affirming its order to the Commission on Elections to restore the voter’s verification paper auditor trail (VVPAT) in the vote-count machines, according to a former lawmaker who is now a leader of an election watchdog group.

            “Former congressman Glenn Chong, convener of the Consortium for Clean and Credible Elections and a member of the Automated Election Systems Watch, said that through vote receipts, it would be easy for voters to see with their own eyes who were benefiting from electronic cheating.

            “To a very big extent, election ‘operators’ and politicians will be afraid to cheat, because candidates who will get an extra vote or who will get a vote that was not cast in their favor will be revealed in the receipt,” Chong told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview.

            “The lawyer said the receipts could also be used to back up the random manual audit for selected precincts that would be conducted to verify the accuracy of the results.

            “Only the voter receipt will effectively deliver the transparency mechanism that will shore up the confidence of the voters in the automated system and effectively diffuse any possible tensions post-election,” he added.”

            As far as I know, ballots are the only go-to in case the election results from the machines are questioned. Now they voting receipts to do that as well?

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              I cannot follow Chong’s logic.

              1. “…it would be easy for voters to see with their own eyes who were benefiting from electronic cheating.”

              1.1. The receipt will only confirm the voter’s choices. If there is a discrepancy between the receipt and his selections, this will only mean that there was a mistake — either in the voter’s shading or a machine misread. Firstly, a machine misread does not necessarily point to electronic cheating. Secondly, the voter only sees his own choices… and so he cannot conclude there is systematic cheating.

              2. “…candidates who will get an extra vote or who will get a vote that was not cast in their favor will be revealed in the receipt…”

              2.1. Same as in 1.1. Either a mistake in the voter’s shading or a machine misread.

              2.2. Additionally, I expect there is an acceptable threshold of machine misreads. Note that the misread may not allocate a vote to a non-selected candidate; it may just be an omission.

              3. “…the receipts could also be used to back up the random manual audit for selected precincts that would be conducted to verify the accuracy of the results.”

              3.1. Only the input ballot should be used for random audits. The receipt should not be used because it is an output… and output may not be equal to input.

              3.2. Further, it unnecessarily makes the auditing procedure complicated. Instead of a two-way audit (ballot aggregation = precinct results) it becomes a three-way audit (ballot aggregation = receipt aggregation = precinct results). I gather that the receipt will not contain voter id info in this election. So the receipt cannot be married with the ballot. Does the consistency between receipt and ballot even have to be established? I don’t believe so. Does the ballot contain the voter id? I would not think so; the ballot should be anonymous.

              3.3. It is definite, I gather, that the receipts will not be allowed to be taken out of the precinct. And there was some talk the receipts will be shredded… as they should be. So the sole purpose of the receipt is to give feedback to the voter as to the accuracy of the machine capture of his choices.

              3.3.1. Has anyone proposed a solution to the potential problem of a sizable number of voter complaints on receipt discrepancies? How will this affect the voting schedule?

              3.3.2. But Josephivo’s question was: who can guarantee that the votes in the receipt were the ones counted by the machine? Meaning there could be internal programming manipulation of the votes.
              *****

              • Cheech and Chong. Write and Wong, that is always the question.

              • karlgarcia says:

                They were born in East L.A.

              • chempo says:

                We have a dish called Chee Chong Fun….
                are we racist or what?

              • Edgar Lores says:

                *******
                Ahaha! Is the food savory? If it is, it would be a compliment to Cheech and Chong.

                I have googled it and it is rice noodle roll eaten as snacks or a dim sum meal. Sounds like fun.
                *****

              • chempo says:

                The receipts will not be taken out, that’s a good thing.
                There should also be a counter to take immediate complaints. If you did not register a complaint, your receipt was OK. That will pre-empt lots of frivolous and malicious complaints later on. But you can imagine the additional work for Comelec.

                Computerised voting fraud always occurs at the transmission part.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Comelec has to establish a complaints protocol. At minimum, the complaint should be logged and complaints categorized and tallied for statistical purposes.

                But what if the volume of complaints is sizable? Should the voting be stopped?

                I believe cheating occurs at two points: at the precinct level (where all sorts of ballot manipulation can be conducted… from voter intimidation to ballot stuffing) and in the canvassing (transmission and aggregation) of votes at the various levels. I think you are right. The greater manipulation, as analyzed by Gus Lagman and as shown in the Garci affair, was in the transmission.

                Automated voting should eliminate to a great degree the transmission problem as results at the precinct level are transmitted without delay and (with proper encryption) to multiple regional and national centers (Comelec and a citizens’ watch).
                *****

    • cwl says:

      I understand the fear. But painting a chaotic Philippines after elections due to absence of majority President is rather over rating the Filipinos.

      It took the people 20 years of Marcos misrule, the assassination of Ninoy, the perceived cheating of the 1986 snap elections before people rose and ousted the Marcos regime.

      And we did it through non-violent People Power. But not before we became aware of a divided military.

      We are a forgiving and forgetful nation. It has been said and written time and time again.
      I am not sure if it is a bane or a boon but we lack the intensity of other society to fight in the streets because a minority president is elected.

      My take is that the people, in general, love to vote but do not take elections seriously.

      For if we take elections seriously, we will not have the type of elections and politicians we have now.

      The nearest scenario that we have is when the Hello Garci scandal erupted.
      Surveys after surveys showed that people believed that GMA cheated in the elections.

      But we let her finish her term.

  15. For those who missed the debate all 5+ hours of the program:

    • Jeps says:

      I managed to watch majority of the debate last night via livestrream.

      I thought 2 candidates did well.

      1) Duterte with his one-liners which endeared him more to his supporters. A lot of memes came out just minutes after the debates. His “I will provide leadership” stance resonated towards the end. The drug menace is real and there is real fear among people in terms of safety and security.

      2) Mar bringing his A-game and rightfully sticking to “let’s follow the rules”. I thought he is the most prepared and provided realistic, grounded statements.

      This debate just unmasked VP’s penchance to take advantage (hanggang kayang manggulang, manggugulang) in all scenarios. Also shows his camp’s inability to follow rules, just like the Dasma-gate fiasco a while back.

      As for Grace, she is beginning to sound more like Chiz now. Her answers are long-winded and she lost me with her reply to Duterte’s question on what would you do if our Coast Guard is attacked in the wee hours of the morning. Roxas got her cornered in their last exchange towards the end and tried to enlist the help of Binay and Du30. Credit Mar for sticking to “let’s follow the rules” mantra. The Mamasapano dig is becoming worn out that she sounds like Showbiz talk show host trying to portray that Pnoy doesnt trust Mar.

      Real winners are people who get to watch the candidates during the debate proper and before the actual start. Credit TV5 for that.

      • Joe America says:

        Observation on Duterte. His last pledge to bring “leadership” was accompanied by the statement he would take the best ideas from the platforms of the other candidates. “Oops.” I thought his best moment was when he had the courage to apologize to Roxas after he mistakenly credited him for the whole of the Yolanda recovery, when he was just responsible for DILG, which did perform well. At some point he is going to have to face up to his “leadership” on human rights.

        • jeps says:

          Ah yes, it was a tacit admission that they don’t have the best platform. At least, he is open to adopting the best ideas haha. Seriously, whoever wins need to make the country more safe and secure.

  16. Bing Garcia says:

    My dear colleagues in Cyber Plaza Miranda, Facebook, Twitter and the Internet. I wanted to announce to you first when the formal book launching will be – two Thursdays from now, on March 31, 2016 in the afternoon at the Ateneo de Manila University. I would very much appreciate it if you and your friends could come. Raissa Robles

  17. Sup says:

    Time spent on the internet: Of course we spent a lot of time on internet because the SLOW connections… 🙂

  18. Amy says:

    Cognitive therapists propose that irrational beliefs are the root cause of people’s maladaptive behaviors. (First, you think, then you feel, then you act.) Consider Beck’s List of Cognitive Distortions:

    1. Arbitrary inferences – making conclusions without supporting and relevant evidence
    2. Selective abstraction – forming conclusions based on an isolated detail of an event
    3. Overgeneralization – holding extreme beliefs on the basis of a single incident and applying them inappropriately to dissimilar events or settings
    4. Magnification and minimization – perceiving a case or situation in a greater or lesser light than it truly deserves
    5. Personalization – a tendency to relate external events to themselves, even when there is no basis for making this connection
    6. Labeling and mislabeling – portraying one’s identity on the basis of imperfections and mistakes made in the past and allowing them to define one’s true identity
    7. Dichotomous thinking – categorizing experiences in either-or extremes

    It seems as though the Filipino youth are prone to all seven, particularly Number 3. Number 5 is ingrained in the Filipino culture. For a demonstration of all seven cognitive distortions, refer to the Cebu debate yesterday. I’d say Poe demonstrated Numbers 2 and 3 extremely well; Binay did the same for Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Duterte was a model for Numbers 4 and 7; and Roxas did a great Number 6.

    • manangbok says:

      Oh my … Beck’s List of Cognitive DIstortions — I so love Psychology 🙂 Thanks Amy, now I know what I want to be when I grow up.

    • Joe America says:

      Thanks for listing Beck’s distortions. These are hard flaws to avoid to make a case or win an argument. It would be nice to have a button, like spell check, that would run an argument through the strainer to filter out and identify all the aberrations. I never use any of those techniques myself. (Ought we add an eighth, which is outright denial?)

    • cecil says:

      The writer is guilty of all the things you mentioned! Hahaha

  19. NHerrera says:

    PROBABLE IMPACT AND DIFFUSION OF VOTES POST SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

    Thanks to the antics of Binay pre-second debate, the viewership — live and post debate — must have increased considerably. Among all sectors, including the youth. We are talking here of TV: the medium of choice across all sectors, not text-based social media commentaries.

    1. I reiterate my belief that the number of Binay is becoming firm at 15 with the likely diffusion of his votes to Duterte, Poe and Roxas in varied amounts.

    2. As a result of other political events and this debate, I also believe that the number of Poe will be constrained in the neighborhood of 30, instead of the hope-for 35 of her supporters.

    5. With the number of Santiago almost nailed at 5, that gives a remaining balance of 50 (equals 100-15-30-50) — for Duterte and Roxas to share.

    3. The potential vote diffusion headed to Duterte and Roxas is the main battleground. In the absence of remarkable strategies/ tactics by both camps, I do not want to hazard a comment, much as I prefer the diffusion to favor Roxas. I have to dust off the dust from my crystal ball.

    • caliphman says:

      Its hard enough believing private party paid survey results and here we are “unbiased” and scientific crystal ball statistical predictions of election results. Have those forecasts been validated by Durbin Watson or Box Jenkins algorithms and what confidence i tervals are we talking about here? 🙂

      • NHerrera says:

        No confidence level attached to that note, caliphman. And no Durbin Watson or Box Jenkins validation. Numerology you may call it. A play on numbers with loose or weak qualitative support. Sort of playing the numbers in response to Irineo’s note ( March 21, 2016 at 1:48 am).

        In order of qualitative descending confidence: Santiago in the neighborhood of 5; Binay in the neighborhood of 15; and Poe in the neighborhood of 30. A lot less confidence in the numbers of Duterte and Roxas.

        Thanks for your note.

        (Also the numbers are crystal-balling the end game rather than the survey swings up and down in the interim.)

        • caliphman says:

          No harm, no foul Manong. Its all good fun and in jest for me. I used to be quite the statistical geek and quant jock myself in my younger years when I was at Wall Street. Those were the days when rocket science and Black Scholes were the crystal balls for forcasting security prices. Those and your crystal balls dont work in the Philippines because elections are like the stock market. They are rigged.

          • NHerrera says:

            🙂

          • NHerrera says:

            I am not into the field, but since you mentioned it, hasn’t Black-Scholes pricing model taken quite a bit of black eye especially those who used it and didn’t help them in the subprime-induced crisis? The model is not used anymore. Right?

            • caliphman says:

              It was and is still used in pricing stock options. The subprime crisis involved mortgagebacked bonds whose values plunged because of the tidal wave of defaults on the underlying _. Banks gave mortgages to unqualified borrowers because they could dpass off the & risk to buyers of the bonds. I watched the Oscar nomineed movie “The Big Short” and its the story of the crisis.

              • chempo says:

                Caliphman, just clarifying. ..you’re lawyer (practicing?), you have pretty good knowledge in high finance and economics. What’s your calling?

              • NHerrera says:

                Thanks for the info. I will try watching “Big Short.”

              • karlgarcia says:

                He did Juris Doctor,post Wall street?

                In the Philippines,we now have MBa-Juris Doctor ,the program was a brainchild of the Comelec Chair Andy Bautista.

  20. chempo says:

    I watched the debate with only 5% understanding as hindi ko maintindihan tagalog.
    It was apparent Binay was a dud, Roxas eloquent and with substance, Poe eloquent but more like story telling, Duterte is Trump-like.
    It’s difficult to engage Duterte. He was elusive, and his un-grammatical halve-sentences is just like Trump — empty hollow stuff, but their fans just thought those were the best quotes they have ever heard.

    How can one walk away and still support Binay is beyond me.

    I had actually planned a blog “Questions I would ask the candidates” but dropped it because it’s election time. The first debate was pure nonsense. What we want in debates are tough but fair questions, and there were a couple of good ones. Questions should grill candidates on what they have been quoted in public, their public actions, their deeds and misdeeds, and aligned these to policy issues. The gentleman who asked Binay on the tax issues was a good one, that’s the kinda questions to ask….but unfortunately, it did not carry into a good policy discussion.

    • Joe America says:

      I think the blog would be fine, couched in terms of journalistic rigor rather than politics.

      Last night’s questions to me were excellent. Better than what US moderators ask. They went to the candidates’ vulnerable spots. It was the candidates who ducked and dodged and shifted to the canned points they wanted to make. I hope someone will do a translation of what Poe said about China attacking a coast guard ship, because that would be litmus test for me. Presidential or not. I think she ducked and dodged.

      Boo Chanco mentioned you in his column this morning, and grabbed a quote from Will. http://www.philstar.com/business/2016/03/21/1564942/weve-lost-our-sense-shame

      • http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2016/03/20/poe-intends-increase-capability-afp-defend-wps/ – this is a good summary:

        Another presidential aspirant Mayor Rodrigo Duterte asked Poe on what she would do if she will be informed that China has invaded the WPS.

        ”First I will wake up and called the AFP chief of staff and address the problem,” Poe said.

        She said she will also appealed to the United Nations arbitration court to decide early on the case filed by the Philippines against China and ask the cooperation of neighbor countries in Southeast Asia to force China to abide with the code of conduct.

        ”We need to enjoin other ASEAN countries to constructively engage China to follow a code of conduct,” the senator said.

        ”If there is a need to knock the door of every country on their stand on UNCLOS. If countries will unite to remind China, we will still prevail,” Poe said.

        — one should know, however, that she criticized that President Aquino was in Zamboanga during the siege, saying that it means he did not trust Mar Roxas…

        Mar Roxas’ answer was he was Aquino was there 9 days to boost morale while Gazmin and he were there for the whole of three weeks on the ground.

        He basically said that just delegating is no good if you have to take care of matters onsite, in effect questioning Poe’s attitude to just farm out work to others.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          I am reminded of the computer term “hands-on.” Poe will not be hands-on.
          *****

          • Joe America says:

            Not necessarily. She will have “war rooms” for several matters, like transportation. She expects things to come to her. She is, according to some, a woman of convenience. So things like sieges, which can’t come to her, she will delegate. These are not my views, I am a mere conduit, a journalist of global bearing and mein.

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              Hmm. A “pattern of doing things by convenience?” In other words, expediency.
              *****

              • Joe America says:

                Opportunism, I’ve heard others say, is deeper than her citizenship issues, but represents her core character. Another is orchestrated populism, as represented by her frequent references to FPJ during campaign stops and regular appearances in church for a quiet moment with God and 10 or 15 cameramen.

        • “In her closing remarks, Poe thanked the people of Visayas, promising to build another bridge connecting Cebu City and Lapu Lapu City to ease traffic…”

          Why stop at just bridge building, think bigger…

          Sets up perfectly for this,
          http://wikimapia.org/1661314/Naval-Base-Rafael-Ramos-Headquarters-Naval-Forces-Central

    • caliphman says:

      Chempo, even with the language barrier, you did not miss much. Actually, if you turned the audio off, you would have a better idea from visual cues who came across as being trustworthy and who is no better than a used car salesman. I did not have to deal with a language barrier but watching Binay pulling out his cheat sheets in this one and being mute in the first one confirmed all my beliefs about his character.

  21. chempo says:

    It’s a truism in a democracy having more than 2 political parties, the eventual winner do not have popular support. And there is nothing wrong with that if after the elections, the people unite behind the winner and get on with their lives. Such is the way that most democracies in the world work. The tragedy with Philippines is the clannish, dynastic, and self-serving leaderships will spend the next 6 years to do their utmost to pull down the winner.

    I wish that Filipinos will learn to co-operate and work towards collective gains. I wish Filipinos will take a leaf of the lima beans….se how nature co-operates.

    • Joe America says:

      It’s hard to get there when each rejection is taken personally. If we walk backwards from the symptom, or itch, we get to the cause, which is rooted in family values and parenting, and the surrogate parent, schools. Self awareness does not happen, or healthy introspection. It is all win/lose. There are lots of losses during a young child’s span of development when the family is stressed and the school is broke.

      • The entire system is repressive and has a lot of shaming moments that hurt confidence. The greatest self-awareness for Filipinos can be corniness – even Rizal’s Noli is full of it if one reads the English translation, not the bad Filipino translation which sounds “heroic”. Another place for self-awareness and confidence to grow is abroad, where the rules of losing face permanently and being shunted out do not apply – Rizal and Luna were there.

        Of course the system is win/lose… and those who have power determine what “truth” is, what “justice” is, what “morals” are. It ain’t much different from the times of Noli and Fili. Self-awareness and confidence is seen as “arrogance”, thinking for oneself is not wanted. You are supposed to follow somebody’s conclusions, not think you can use reason to come up with your own. “Sense of we not me” can be even worse in the Philippines, “we” as in dictatorial follower groups. Healthy sense of me is needed first for a really good “we”.

  22. R.Hiro says:

    Can anyone inform me as to who were the panelists asking thew questions in last nights debate. Was the debate based on platforms or slogans?

    • karlgarcia says:

      The March 20 Presidential Debate in Cebu will be moderated by TV5 News and Public Info head Luchi Cruz-Valdes (center). She will be joined by a panel of distinguished media professionals (from left) lawyer Tony Abad, The Philippine STAR editor-in-chief Ana Marie Pamintuan, Lourd de Veyra, Erwin Tulfo, STAR news editor Marichu Villanueva and lawyer Ruphil Banoc.

      ————
      It is more on platform.But the mentionining of galing at puso,daang matuwid,etc can not be avoided.

    • @Karl @ RHiro Erwin Tulfo was supposedly suspended for a month by TV5 higher ups because of his harsh words against RCBC executives.

      http://business.inquirer.net/208807/dirty-money-secrets-ph-exposed

    • The questions were relatively on point, About third was about issues/platforms while a third was personality based questions, the final third was a Q&A between candidates.

      Each candidate was allowed a closing statement.

  23. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/775486/duterte-roxas-won-cebu-debate-inquirer-net-facebook-site-polls – my summary of Inquirer’s polls on who was the winner of the debate:

    FB page poll of Inquirer: 83% Duterte, 8% Roxas, 6% Poe, 4% Binay

    Inquirer website poll: 40% Roxas, 30% Duterte, 28% Poe, 2% Binay

    I think website and FB show different population segments, NHerrera might want to analyze…

    But the trend is clearly against Binay at least online, a certain uptick is there for Roxas I think. How many out of those who voted ALREADY BILIB before and BILIB ONLY AFTER I really wonder.

    http://www.philstar.com/news-feature/2016/03/21/1565194/5-takeaways-2nd-presidential-debate

    1. The great delay

    2. Binay attacked for corruption allegations

    (but it is not mentioned that Duterte hardly attacked Binay and vice versa)

    3. Strong exchange between Poe and Roxas

    (true… but also between Duterte and Roxas)

    4. Digressing from the main topic to attack each other

    (they mention examples for all three candidates except Roxas who did NOT digress)

    5. Candidates reveal positions on controversial issues

    pro-death penalty: Poe and Duterte
    pro-Marcos burial: Binay and Duterte
    pro-divorce: nobody

    There were two major issues not touched frontally: China and the BBL.

    Coverage IS improving, but the two major papers still slant the news in such a way that too fast readers will get the wrong impression.

    • http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/opinion/2016/03/21/editorial-improvement-first-463849

      THE second presidential debate held here in Cebu was obviously an improvement from the first one held in Cagayan de Oro City in terms of handling. We are not referring here to the ability of the moderator, TV 5’s Luchi Cruz-Valdez, to impose strict adherence to the rules–she often found it difficult to do that—but rather to the freeing of the participants from the straitjacket of formalism, transforming the debate into an interesting, rollicking affair.

      That, in a way, was what saved the activity, whose start was delayed by one hour and a half because of the attempt of the camp of Jejomar Binay of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) to breach the rule against the use of documents in the debate. It didn’t matter if Valdez erroneously acceded to the request. When the rules were clarified, the Binay camp should have stopped holding hostage the affair.

      • http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/126644-cebuano-students-comment-presidential-bets-mudslinging

        The students say they expected more from the presidential hopefuls.

        KLEN QUIÑANOLA, UP STUDENT: There was very much mudslinging and you can see from the audience inside the Performing Hall itself that the audience was entertained. Although we were entertained because Pinoys actually liked mudslinging, but in the essence, that’s not the essence of the debate. I would expect in the debate in Luzon that it would be eradicated already.

        For this political science student, the candidates should have just focused on the issues set for the debate: climate change, disaster management, women’s rights, health, and corruption.

        MOIRA MANUEL, UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS STUDENT: They went away from the issues and they attacked on personality, and it was not issue-based. Personality attacks and mudslinging does really nothing to educate the people and to improve the political culture here in the Philippines.

        There’s also disappointment that some of the set issues were not discussed at all.

        KARINA LIPARDO, CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDENT: We really were excited about platforms about health. Especially because candidates have said before that they want better access to health care. But what does that actually mean for them? What are the concrete plans they have to achieve this?

        Candidates also kept on talking over each other.

        MOIRA MANUEL, UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS STUDENT: It was just Ms Luchi against 4 presidentiables. I think a stricter set of moderators would really help that the presidentiables would really respect the rules of the debate.

        Despite the shortcomings, students say the second presidential debate is much better than the first leg in Cagayan de Oro. Will the Luzon debate be the best among the 3?

        Dagupan City on April 24th… let us see.

        • R.Hiro says:

          Firstly many thanks to Karl and the others who answered my query. It is interesting to read the two comments of the students present in the debate.

          Also on the topics top be debated. The young who are students in colleges and universities deserve better. The people debating I believe are all running for President not dogcatcher.

          The questions should have started as to their belief systems or philosophies on the role of government in the scheme of things. This is not a beauty contest. The answers dwelling on “working for world peace and helping the poor” are suited better for trying to insert some intelligence in a beauty contest.

          Almost the whole country are in a state in vincible ignorance (borrowed from the Catholics) about political economy.

          We are still a developing country. In Filipino economics is simply the “Pagaral ng kakayahan nang mga tao para sa kanilang kabuhayan.” The study of the resources of man and its allocation to human needs.

          What is governments role in society…Corruption, poverty, unabated criminality in all forms are symptoms not the causes of society’s ills. I recall the last big scandal involving major banks, the T-Bill scandal…Banks were paying for T-Bills which they never received.

          So you want to solve the symptom with a hammer? The role of the organizers is to properly set the table and the menu. The intent obviously is to get high ratings and not to enlighten.

          For the love of God, the white minority in the U.S. is going postal with Trump simply because the truth of the matter is free trade led globalization has gutted the middle class in the U.S. Trump is viciously drawing the correct political line and it is resonating with the angry white man…

          Here the steak and wine so called political experts would like to know issues like divorce?

          Even The Pope has already stated that the Catholic annulment process must be shortened. Why insist he use the term divorce?

          I saw parts of the debate last night and saw the so called Presidentiable’s calling for opening up the energy industry to foreign capital…As Krugman’s use of the phrase Invincible ignorance applies for all of them. The generation of electricity is already open to 100% foreign participation.

          However the problem remains that no private investor will invest hundreds of millions of schekels unless the supply/demand equation is always tight…

          No private capitalist can afford to have excess generating capacity to a great extent. The debt equity ratio can be leverage in favor of high debt leverage guaranteeing a higher spread going forward.

          Plus the payback for private animal spirits must be faster….

          Electricity and water are part of the commons. Hence our electric rates are the highest in Asia.

          Please note we are consumers not producers of capital equipment. Machines, engines and turbines…

          The entire issue of maldevelopment and underdevelopment of our political/economy and hence our society is deeply rooted in the sins of the past that has to be exorcised.

          The ruling classes are betting on different horses. If it becomes a photo finish you can bet the political scenario will be tenuous. There are no real political parties here. There are only clans.

          • karlgarcia says:

            You are welcome RHiro.
            I was thinking that finally,you were already interested in voting for a president,but maybe not.
            Invincible ignorance.Is that kind of ignorance,bliss?

    • http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/126536-philippines-up-cebu-presidential-debate-polls-duterte – details are worth looking at…

      Duterte was ALWAYS first with between 60-70% of votes in every round

      Roxas was mostly second with between 16-23% of votes in every round

      Poe was mostly third with between 8-22% of votes in every round

      What is interesting is that Roxas rose in estimation over several rounds and Poe dropped. Binay’s score was forgettable. This all is interesting material for NHerrera and gian.

      • caliphman says:

        Just to balance out the spinning contest, it must be mentioned that Rappler’s editors judged Poe the overall winner and Roxas second in the first and second debates. Its like the rotten tomato movie reviews; there are the supposedly professional cinematic reviews and the men in the street amateur two cent opinion. My own take? Duterte won the best standup comic and entertainer award based on the two cent online crowd and would have lost to Miriam had she shown up and unleashed her pickup lines.

      • NHerrera says:

        Irineo:

        Without doing research, the following notes may suffice:

        1. The facebook crowd is the more youthful type, characterized by Joe as high-speed or by manangbok as hyper-aware but discernment-short, reflecting the Duterte-Roxas 83-8 voting profile. On the other hand, the Inquirer.net crowd is broad range in age and the more reasoning type reflecting the Roxas-Duterte 40-30 voting profile.

        2. The Binay childish behavior re “using notes in the debate” in full view of live and TV audience explains his kulelat number and perhaps portends his number in the forthcoming scientific survey.

        3. Poe’s debate ranking in both crowds validates my gut feel noted elsewhere in the blog that her expected number surge post SC decision may be constrained rather than the big surge expected by her supporters.

    • Madlanglupa says:

      > FB page poll of Inquirer: 83% Duterte, 8% Roxas, 6% Poe, 4% Binay

      Taking this with a grain of salt; as with most online polls, it’ll be easily be swamped by a lot of fake accounts, given that I’ve seen a lot of one-time Disqus accounts used to clog up the comment sections.

  24. cha says:

    “To 70% of all Filipinos, their President will not be worth respecting.”

    As a consolation though, if we consider that that figure is an aggregate of different configurations of groups of supporters of the non-winning candidates , then we’ll really have different post-election scenarios for each winning candidate. Add the winning VP and his/her supporters to the mix and it becomes even less worrisome; as at the rate things are going the wnners will most likely not come from the same ticket at all.

    I think the Duterte and Roxas supporters, while having very different ideas about how to solve the problems of the country, are really the most invested in the country’s future. They also actually have a lot more in common than they care to admit. They are both anti-corruption, pro-peace in Mindanao, and in their own different ways driven by a vision of a better Philippines. They are also the most engaged in social media, I read somewhere. So we can probably expect lots of noise in social media at the outset should their respective candidates lose but eventually both will quiet down, lick their wounds and get on with their lives; perhaps a lot less engaged, a bit more cynical but not likely to resort to sabotage or undermining their own country’s progress.

    Grace Poe’s supporters are probably even less likely to be disruptive. Those who went for her because of her (or was that her father’s) popularity will eventually find themselves another “idol”. Those who supported her believing she will be the one to beat Binay will most likely just be relieved their worst fear (a Binay win) did not materialise if Duterte or Roxas wins.

    The Binay supporters, if there are even any real ones left at this point, will just wait for further instructions. And that’s probably the more worrying part.

    If at all, there will be disruptions to the new administration’s effective functionng, it will probably come from vested interest groups with very little regard for the national interest but have the means and resources to create havoc, destabilize and derail the country’s progress to eventually wrest power for themselves. Pretty much what the current administration already had to contend with anyway.

    • cha,

      So in your eyes Duterte and Roxas are neck and neck right now? (Ireneo, so it is Batman vs. Superman— and I guess, with Grace Poe as Wonder Woman at this point),

    • Joe America says:

      I gave up thinking along those lines of predicting voters when I surmised, prior to the Poe court decision, that her backers would mainly go to Roxas because they are honest and honorable folk. Then the survey said most would go to Binay. I also have a bit of a disconnect with you on Duterte when you say that followers are interested in peace and order and would support a Roxas or perhaps even a Poe. Their on-line persona is quite thuggish and impatient with mainstream, what I would call “civil”, thinkers. Finally, I look at the lack of support granted to President Aquino and just throw my hands in the air. Basically, I think there is a broader and deeper strand of “crab and crook mentality” here, and absolutely minimal ability to bend to accept a way different than “mine”. I just scrapped a blog on that point because it was too negative although, from my vantage point, true.

      I agree that the term “extremist” is overkill. But I would wager that, no matter who is elected, the negative picture that has been drawn by opponents is so strong that it will ride with that person throughout his term. I don’t see a united nation at all. There are vested interests speaking loudest, yes, but they are feeding into an audience that is bitter because their candidate (they) lost. So woe to the President who has another Yolanda or Mamasapano on his watch. The protective shield of loyalty and compassion is very, very thin.

      • Wilfredo G. Villanueva says:

        True, Joe, about the possibility of a divided nation post-election. But Filipinos are consummate survivors. We can start with our circle of friends in social media. I have a brother in Christ who gives me a lifetime supply of Holy Mass readings. A practicing Christian, his every word is holy, but he comes from Davao, grew up in the neighborhood of Mayor Rody Duterte, swears by the presidential candidate’s virtues, and is therefore an unshakable supporter. His Duterte-Cayetano versus my Roxas-Robredo. We still see eye-to-eye in Christ’s name, no problem there, yet it has to be a conscious effort on both sides, to see beyond the elections and keep on forging ahead with our brotherhood in every sense of the word. It’s a conscious effort in election period, I know, many awkward moments between us, but our friendship survives in the heat of the battle. I hope other keyboard warriors from all sides of the political spectrum will do likewise. We have no choice. Start in our own sphere of influence. Losing an election because our candidate didn’t win is one, losing a friend because his candidate didn’t win is another. Filipinos after all, are family- and friend-centric first, politics be shelved, put in its place, part of a six-year cycle. If my friend and I were drinking buddies, we’ll say, “Tagay muna,” but we’re Christians, so we say, “Amen.”

        • stpaul says:

          Ganun po yata talaga, our family and friends ay iba ang mga pananaw. I guess during election period we find solace and camaraderie with people we don’t know but share our hearts and values with. I am hopeful with your comment Will that for once we can be united in supporting the person who will be our President/VP in May.

        • Joe America says:

          I don’t doubt the resilience, by whatever anchor people use, faith, family, fortitude/durability, or reason. But I somehow think that progress would be better if so many people weren’t busy tossing wrenches into the machinery of governance because they are bitter that their candidate lost. Another way to look at it, teamwork is poor, ball hogging is hot.

          • Joe America says:

            I would offer as evidence the fact that there is any debate about who should be president. As one team, the Philippine nation should be absolutely ecstatic at the rise of their nation and the good works done over the past six years. Who in their right mind, being a party to this, a team mate, would want anything but a continuation?

        • Wil,

          Any chance you can write up an interview with your brother from Davao, on not only about Duterte, but Davao’s potential rise, as the anti-Manila?

      • cha says:

        1. “… I surmised, prior to the Poe court decision, that her backers would mainly go to Roxas because they are honest and honorable folk. Then the survey said most would go to Binay.”

        That probably covers those who went with her because of her father’s popularity. They do not have any strong commitments to the ideals and principles espoused by Poe herself and are thus easily swayed to support any other candidate they can identify with. And that is why, on their own, I think they will not have as strong a reaction against any other candidate who wins. But having no strong stand on social and political issues around them, they of course are also the easier ones to agitate and manipulate. That s why I say it is really the powerful vested unterest groups that we have to worry about. They can take advantage of any outcome contrary to their interests if need be.

        2. On Duterte followers supporting Roxas or Poe.

        I wasn’t saying that will henceforth be embracing Roxas or Poe. My point is that both groups will have it in their interest for the country to continue on a path to progress and development. Many of Duterte’s followers are actually from the A, B, And C classes. After this election, they will mostly go back to their jobs, or busnesses and other means of livelihood. Like I already said, they will make noise in social media, resort to cyberbullying even for a while but that would probably be the extent of it. But I don’t see them running riot on the streets just yet.

        They will probably be most vicious against a Roxas win, but if Roxas scores actual wins in resolving the issues they have for supportng Duterte, eg. peace and order, Metro Mla’s transport woes, then they will just quiet down. But if Roxas fouls up, then of course we can expect them to make things difficult for his administration.

        3. “No matter who is elected, the negative picture that has been drawn by opponents is so strong that it will ride with that person throughout his term.”

        For the hardcore it probably will. But the best antidote to that is success as has been evident in Aquino’s term. Those keen on destabilizing government and derailing the reforms that have been introduced during this ncumbency failed not for lack of trying but because they were not able to muster the widespread support needed to bring this administration down.

        I am not saying it is going to be a bed of roses, I recognise it will be very difficult, even more so than it’s been for the Aquino admnistration. But what happens next, I think, is more dependent on how certain power groups behave in the aftermath of the election and what buttons they are willing to push to draw support from each of the candidate’s supporters. (These would include those with pending corruption cases among others.) So the first order of the day for the next President, to my mind, is to neutralise these groups and keep them from doing further harm. They are far more dangerous than any particular group of supporters of the different candidates.

        • Joe America says:

          I appreciate the elaboration. One of the power groups is media. Tough to neutralize. I guess I remain skeptical, although liking your optimism. The reason is as I explained to Will, I don’t see “team” in Philippine nationalism. I see “interests”. If it were team, the excitement over what has been achieved would be sky high, and there would be no issue as to whom to support.

    • karlgarcia says:

      If the winner is not our choice,we must have lots of honey to sweeten any bitterness.
      If you feel bile on your throat take a teaspoon of honey.
      And if you run out of honey, the grain of salt would be excellent.

      Let us maintain our vigilance,but not be part of monkey wrench throwing and killing of good bills and good policies.

      • Wilfredo G. Villanueva says:

        As long as VP Binay does not make it and lands in jail, I’m all right. The country can survive the next six years. Karl is right. Vigilance is key. And no monkey wrenches as long as:

        a) President Aquino, the Ombudsman, Leila de Lima are not persecuted,

        b) West Philippine Sea claims are not compromised,

        c) Corruption cases are not tossed out,

        d) Coconut levy fund is not denied to source,

        e) No immoral activity in Malacañang Palace such as boozing, womanizing, flagrant adultery.

        • cha says:

          In the meantime, we keep pushing. Roxas and Robredo to the finish line.

        • Wilfredo G. Villanueva says:

          Oops. Forgot Bongbong. As long as doesn’t win, I’m all right. And:

          f) No FM burial in Libingan, sacred place for heroes of the republic, pretenders keep out.

          • Madlanglupa says:

            To add G.) No history schoolbook be revised according to the wishes of anyone trying to whitewash, especially passages concerning the Martial Law period.

    • NHerrera says:

      Cha, Joe, Will, LCpl_X, Irineo, Karl, stpaul, edgar: nice set of comments there — all bases covered.

  25. NHerrera says:

    The March 8-13 Pulse Asia survey gave the following numbers for Poe, Duterte, Binay, Roxas, Santiago, Seneres, No Response: 26, 25, 22, 20, 3, 0.1, 5.

    Notes:

    1. Pulse Asia tightened the variation on the statistical numbers by using 4,000 respondents with standard dev of 1.5.

    2. Poe’s expected surge in number post SC decision did not materialize, with probably, among others —

    3. Duterte shining this time around

    4. Question: Will Binay regain his top on the totem pole billing? A 20-80 chance?

    The link:

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/126710-duterte-ties-poe-pulse-asia-poll-presidential-elections

    • Adrian says:

      The prospect of having Duterte and Marcos for the 2 highest position of our Government is really disheartening. I’m seriously considering to raise my children somewhere else.

      • NHerrera says:

        Have you considered the land of kangaroos? You may try joining edgar in Oz. And post in JoeAm’s from there.

        One advantage — during the summer heat there, come and visit the country of smiles, laughter and lots of fun. Right about the weather edgar?

        • Adrian says:

          Honestly, this is my first choice. Spent a month working in Sydney on a not too hot summer. Experience was good. And best of all, it’s just 8 hours away from “Perla del Mar de Oriente”.

          • NHerrera says:

            Eight hour travel time is a nice thing, compared to that with, say, the US or Canada. Oz beckons then — if the heat (political that is) becomes intolerable to ruin one’s days. 🙂

        • Joe America says:

          I checked out some prices in Oz earlier today, Brisbane and Melbourne. Melbourne is more expensive than Brisbane, and Brisbane is comparable to America. It is not a “low cost” location. Hahaha. On to Costa Rica . . .

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          NHerrera,

          From where I reside in Queensland, you are right about the weather. The average Philippine temperature is 27 degrees C (81 F). The average Queensland temperature is 2 degrees higher, 29 C (85 F). Since December, there have been many days and weeks above 30 C. As people do in Manila, I seek refuge in malls. Thankfully, there is Wi-Fi which enables me to check emails and the wisdom of The Society… in-between bouts of reading.

          (Current reading material: Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa, a 1060-page tome about feudal Japan. The original manuscript spanned 15 volumes; Yoshikawa was able to reduce it to 2 volumes.

          Feudal Japan (1400 – 1600) was wracked by internecine war among the provinces, ruled by powerful families (daimyos). The disciplined beauty of modern Japan, I believe, is largely based on the devotion, loyalty and sacrifice of the peasants, ronin and samurai to their lords (daimyos and shoguns (warlords), who were the predominant daimyo family in a region). Death was not feared. It was not only duty but something to be welcomed in service of one’s lord… and to preserve honor.)
          *****

          • NHerrera says:

            edgar,

            Thanks for the info on the weather.

            You and I strike a chord in at least one aspect you just wrote — historical and storied accounts of feudal japan. I love the heroic or marvelous deeds, the devotion of the samurai to their daimyos, honor, the discipline and sacrifice all that. Not that I myself can act the full 100 percent of the samurai. But I love the “romance” associated with the setting. The Japanese are really an unusual people in a lot of ways that I admire.

      • caliphman says:

        Great, if you have that option. Thats what Jim Paredes did but he came back once the danger had passed. Some

      • Madlanglupa says:

        I made my choice long ago that I will stand my ground here, even if I were to be offered to emigrate. The fight has been done before, so it’ll be necessary to take the fight again through samizdat.

        • Adrian says:

          I very much admire your choice. That was also my choice until it I had to reconsider it for my children.

          It really is frustrating, I feel so helpless. In the office, most of them are for Duterte and I tried showing them the risks of having this man becoming the President, I don’t think I’m successful.

    • Joe America says:

      Note 4. Binay took the Inquirer to task for running the COA report information. He demanded equal time for a response, such request denied. Since then, the Inquirer has run a couple of headlined reports putting Binay in a bad light. I’d say one messes with editorial prerogative around here at one’s own risk. I think the more significant mainstream media are in the Poe corner, not Binay. Binay has a couple of second-stringers. Duterte is the talk of the town on social media. Roxas is stuck with leftovers all around. The debate winners differ from outlet to outlet, proving the point that media polls and opinions are more a reflection of the observers than the candidate. The candidates were really competing only for the undecideds, which I suspect is a small number. I’m guessing Roxas will show better in the next national poll based on the debate. He does not show “meek” in debates. I don’t know if Duterte moved anybody. Maybe not. Binay didn’t move any, I’d guess. I doubt that Poe did, either.

  26. cwl says:

    The latest PA-ABS CBN survey is quite telling considering that it was taken 60 days before election time.

    It is quite hard, no matter how optimist one could be, for Roxas and and Binay supporters to hope that their candidate will win although hope springs eternal, as they say.

    Sixty-days ago, or January of this year, Binay’s ratings was already in the downswing while Roxas’ was stuck at 20 percent

    And if we go earlier, or November of 2015, the numbers especially those of Roxas are the same 20 percent, give or take 2 points.

    One hundred twenty days of polling results are enough to conclude that we are just fooling ourselves if the numbers will change as the candidates will just go with the flow the next 60 days.

    I hate to surrender early but I have yet to see signs that Roxas and the Daang Matuwid can still win.

    My question now is what went wrong with Roxas campaign? Is it the person or the message?

    There are some disconnections such as while majority of people appreciate the gains of Daang Matuwid, people will still vote for candidates on the opposite side. While we venerate Pope Francis like a living saint, we will still vote for a candidate who cursed him.

    • I will answer your question about ” What went wrong with Roxas campaign? Is it the person or the message?
      The problem is the electorate mentality, he too decent for them not suitable for this kind of thinking, Filipinos want quick fix for the problem (3-6 months to solve the crime). Macho type approach.
      I also mentioned here in my post before if Mar is running in the first world country he had no problem winning this election, if Filipinos are smart people Mar Roxas will win this election very easily.

      • chempo says:

        “Filipinos want quick fix for the problem (3-6 months to solve the crime)”

        Ahh I see where Duterte is coming from. That’s why he said he will wipe out crime within 6 months.

      • Joe America says:

        I will attempt to quantify this in Thursday’s blog. Criteria are not platforms, but pizzazz. You are spot on, I think.

    • Jonathan says:

      If you look at the cross-tabs of the poll Mar’s competitive in all but one region: NCR. There he’s getting brutalized at 9 percent.

      Looking at it from the purely political angle, I’m not sure there was much of anything the campaign could have done. The seeds of the current transportation fiasco were laid years ago… how far back is a matter of debate. Maybe if Abaya was willing to fall on his own sword – or the President ordered him to do so – it wouldn’t have turned into a political nightmare. Could Mar the presidentiable have ordered Abaya to quit? He couldn’t. If Mar loses, it won’t be because of anything he’s done.

      • NHerrera says:

        Jonathan,

        For info, for the 54.4 million 2016 registered voters, the distribution in millions is

        NCR 6.3
        BL 24.2
        VIS 11.3
        MIN 12.6

        NCR = National Capital Region
        BL = Balance of Luzon
        VIS = Visayas
        MIN = Mindanao

        Meaning both NCR and BL (considering the weight) are both “brutal” on Roxas.

      • cwl says:

        It could be. At 9 percent at the NCR and still getting 20 percent nationally, Roxas is strong except for Metro Manila. Can you imagine if he has double digit in NCR, say 16 percent, he will be at the top.
        So it is basically wrong to say that he is weak, but he is so weak at his weakest point. Metro Manila.
        How did it happen. I think he is unlucky to have Binay as one of the candidates because NCR is Binay’s bailiwick. Also Poe is popular in NCR. And now the surging Duterte.
        The question now is why is Roxas so unpopular in NCR?
        Part of it is media driven ( Ted Failon, Noli de castro hitting him at every opportunity, I don’t know why), both print and broadcast.
        So I will go back to my premise that much of Roxas woes are questions of campaign strategy.
        The strategists should have dealt with the NCR factor some 12 or 18 months before.
        This is war and luck and strategy play big part.

        • Jonathan says:

          NCR is the way it is because the perceived failures of the administration have stacked up here. So more than any other part of the country, this is where “six more years of what we have” will fall down harder than anywhere else.

          They needed a way to spin “we’re doing something to help you out of your woes”. By the time they even tried, the whole “Tuwid na Daan = traffic, pain, bad transport” connotation was too strong. They needed to start thinking about this even as early as 2013.

    • Adrian says:

      Considering that Duterte and Marcos are the chosen ones of Class ABC (the “educated class”), we (Filipinos collectively) miserably failed in educating our people. And some people thought making ITRs (tax return) a requirement to vote? This is exactly the result.

      To answer your question, Roxas’ campaign failed to make him look “cool” or “badass”. I just wonder, how did Heneral Luna (movie) help Duterte?

      If this battle would be lost, I think as good citizens of Lupang Hinirang, we should focus on the long term – properly educating the young. Question is, how do we do/start this? We just can’t let our schools to do it for us.

      • My blogsite is intended as a contribution to that long-term aspect.

        The idea of chronicling the next six years part of it – elections and inauguration, every SONA with what happened in the year and a rough performance check of everything possible.

        One major source I intend to use is the weekly update of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, which I think not even Duterte or Marcos will dare touch, at least initially: http://www.eccp.com/?category=23

        • Adrian says:

          Salamat, Irineo. I am a visitor of your site, I love history. Please extend my regards to the Great Zeus. I am not from UP but I’m aware of “Pantayong Pananaw”.

          • Welcome… I will. The really deep stuff of that group is over here on http://www.bagongkasaysayan.org/ and the current stuff over here: http://www.bagongkasaysayan.org/saliksik/

            I am not a pro just a hobbyist. But it could be that a simplified but not oversimplified version of history will be better able to reach more people who are afraid of the really academic stuff. Xiao Chua’s and Lourd de Veyra’s really fun historical stuff can easily be found on youtube as well..

            • sonny says:

              Irineo, the sites are physically first-class looking. I stopped reading because at my age, Taglish ang dating. There are three idea streams going on in my head as I read: Tagalog, English-Tagalog, English. It is too cumbersome to handle. Your blogsite is more manageable. Sorry. Maybe if I had fresh supply of brain cells streaming in.

              • I see my role in all of this as: summarizer, simplifier, compiler, chronist, aggregator. There is still a lot of work to be done – just watching all of Xiao Chua’s videos is one thing. Xiao Chua is very Chinoy/modernist is his approach, his blogsite a gold mine of information on Revolution and postwar Republic while Atoy Navarro is a modern Tagalog-minded nationalist now expanding his horizons to include the Malay triangle and the Austronesian world.

                Xiao Chua who was born early 1980s and Lourd de Veyra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourd_de_Veyra) who was one of the panelists in the presidential debate are both Generation X but both are a bit closer to the millenials in their way of expressing things.

                Our work is similar to restorers of old church mosaics damaged by bombs I think sometimes. We have to find each shard and glue them together properly and painstakingly to restore the mosaic of our history to it’s true glory. Every contribution counts, every comment, every article.

                So much to do, let us continue rebuilding our narrative – thanks for inspiring me to start it! 🙂

                Just watching Xiao Chua’s Quezon City history on Youtube and summarizing it – or Lourd de Veyra’s Beatles in the Philippines… are examples for serious but fun work. Our reconstruction of early Philippine military history of which McArthur is just the keystone of the basilica’s arch… But the silent readership of the blog is growing… especially the penultimate “buwaya” article… and every mind that we manage to inspire is worth the effort. The mosaic is very intricate…

              • sonny says:

                Your role is totally fine with me: deep, comprehensive and deliciously eclectic. 🙂

  27. Madlanglupa says:

    Interesting debate, especially on the (im)practicality of federalism. Remember that most local Reddit users are between 18 to 40.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/4bfr1g/let_me_just_say_why_im_voting_for_duterte/

    The Action Star repeats the federalism mantra, yet doesn’t seem to explain the pros and cons of it — and exactly how it works — to the average person whose main sources of information are from tabloids, Facebook and television; what they’ll get about federalism — especially those living in Visayas or Mindanao — is the idea that it’s the silver bullet, the Holy Grail, the seven Dragon Balls, or manna from heaven.

    What he is trying to achieve here is to provide an even ground and proper distribution of national wealth, and due recognition and representation for Visayas and Mindanao.

    That is the theory.

    But I’m still not convinced, since LGUs are often run by political clans like the Leyte Romauldezes more interested in keeping themselves in power, and divert funds to their own benefit. Federalism would instead make things worse by intensifying regionalism and corruption, giving more power to the dynasties, effectively turning provinces or regions into fiefdoms, throwbacks to the pre-Hispanic times.

    Fortunately, there are those Fil-Ams who make sense out of all of this hype and why federalism isn’t the miracle thingy Rody is trying to proffer. And those who are wiser enough not to believe in Facebook memes.

  28. Juan dela Cruz says:

    Anyone of you noticed the last parting messages of the candidates? I think the situation where Roxas was the last one who spoke was fortunate. It may make people remember his message more than those of the other candidates. Even the message was well formed and well delivered, (kudos to the writer if there is one) it was like a story telling that catches your attention, it appealed to the desire of Filipinos to be treated equally and to fight those who take advantage of the system and feel a sense of entitlement. Heck, I even related a bit about “sa mga naniningit.” I suspect many other Filipinos related to his last message as well. I believe there will be a boost in Mar’s rating in the next survey.

  29. Caliphman says:

    If the same Filipino respondents used in the presidential surveys were queried on who they would prefer among the US candidates, I would bet their top choice would be Trump.For many Republicans he is seen as the best alternative to the American version of trapos who have mired the government in gridlock. His forceful can do manner, his willingness to dispense with political correctness, his outrageous behavior echoes Duterte and his style which apparently is very much in demand in large segments of the US and Philippine public.It says a lot about both population’s widespread frustration with government’s inability to deal with their key problems inspite of good economic progress on the national front. That a billionaire with the manners of a buffoon and whose experience in government pales with that of a certain US school teacher and possessed by a megalomanic personality like Duterte’s ends up being poll favorite raises the following question. Where is this greater sophistication and more mature electorate in the US and other first world countries that differentiates them from our own masa voters? Maybe they both have local agendas, attitudes and different priorities that come before what is allegedly in the best of the country.

  30. Si Mar Roxas lang ang nag-sasabi ng Totoo. Samantalang si Duterte, Poe at Binay ang Nagsinungaling sa Debate Part 2 sa Cebu ayon sa Fact-Checking ng GMA7

    Only Mar Roxas was telling the truth. GMA News researched and checked the facts and Mar was proven to have stated the truth about the Bottoms Up Budgeting, the Coco Levey Fund that needs and enabling law to be distributed and who is truly in control of the police force.,

  31. Madlanglupa says:

    If he needs to save his campaign, I think he’ll have to immediately apologize to the Muslims in general, apparently because he seems to have a problem trying to articulate what he was trying to say, having been baited by, of course, The Action Star.

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/775722/armm-governor-defends-roxas-after-muslim-na-mananakop-quip
    http://www.mb.com.ph/roxas-asked-to-clarify-description-of-muslims-as-mananakop/

  32. sonny says:

    Now you confuse me, Joe. Is it Joe Friday or Joe Phelps? 🙂

    http://www.goodsoil.com/comebackers/copper-clappers-caper1/

  33. R.Hiro says:

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21695076-how-non-voters-blew-it?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2

    For those who say that a large majority of Republicans are for Trump is wrong and misleading. Open/Closed primaries and caucuses do not bring out mainstream of voters. Trump’s verbosity has brought out a dangerous mix of crazies.

    Hence the move to try to engineer a brokered Republican convention where the first cote would surely fail and a rumble would ensue…

    The Republican party is facing a very serious insurgency… It has created its own monster Trump…

    The second choice is the devil himself in Cruz. So choose deep blue sea or the devil.

    • chempo says:

      RHiro
      I find Cruz and Rubio two guys with great intellect and debating skills.

      On Cruz, I understand he is very conservative and evangelical. But I don’t really understand US issues deeply. Why do you consider him devilish?

      • Joe America says:

        RHiro can give his view. Mine is that, before Trump, there was Cruz, holding such an extreme view that he held the entire Republican party hostage and forced them into radical positions that cast the party as obstructionist and not really interested in the well-being of the nation, as defined by a moderate middle path. He and Rubio both mistake the platform as a pulpit and their speech style becomes preach, which would be fine if it were in church. But it is not.

        • What seems to be moving, inspiring, the Evangelicals (also fundamentalist Mormons and Catholics, IMHO) is that they are the victims. The buzz word right now is Religious Freedom. In fairness to them, the LGBT movement is pretty crazy, in your face approach. Liberals and Muslims have this weird relationship in college campus (I think Islam is the new Communism, stone throwing Palestinians are the new Che Guevarras).

          But as far as actual victimization by gov’t, it’s non-existent— so Cruz and Rubio’s strength is the illusion of victimhood. Maybe, sonny can elaborate, but from my view is political Passion play, which is dangerous.

  34. Roberto Cruz Niverba says:

    Sa lahat ng mahilig mag posts ng comment sa facebook paki basa lang po ito. If you understand it fully well, facebook posts will never be the same. From the posts you make it can be discerned what ego state we are in.

    Let me give a concrete example. In 2013, during mg stay in SG, I always watch their parliamentary debates. I observed that the way they exchange ideas is very academic, cordial, well-mannered seeking for superior logic type. No drama. Or in our level of development boring. When I observed their news reporting ganoon din. (They are exhibiting adult to adult communication).

    What is my point. Our level of development in terms of communication as a nation is more of a child ego state. From politicians, news anchors, to social media. Galit, tuksuhan, name calling, etc.

    Sa mga nakaintindi, maraming salamat, itaas pa natin ang level ng discussions. Sa mga hindi makaintindi, child pa more!

    Article posted in my fb for public reading.

    My apologies Joe it is in vernacular (copy paste)

    • chempo says:

      “… the way they exchange ideas is very academic, cordial, well-mannered seeking for superior logic type. No drama.”

      Your observation of parliamentary debates in my country is spot on. But alas, there are many, especially the mellenials, who will say it’s boring. If you watch UK parliamentary debates, they are somewhat similar (we learnt from them) but they are more robust, nevertheless always on issues and mostly respectful.

      Robert it’s good that whilst out of Phils you observe and learn the ways of other countries. Of cos there are good and bad stuff. It is hoped that millions of returning OFWs will share all the good stuff that they learnt elsewhere and less traveled Filipino populace can understand that a lot of bad stuff that is being done here could have been done in better ways. Your posting in FB is one tiny step that each OFW can and must take to help uplift the nation.

      • Joe America says:

        But it is boring in the same way a child would find adult conversation boring. The social-media millenials seem to be on a path of social regression to me. Singapore, US, possibly everywhere that easy information and easy opinion mongering supplant reading, research, study and development of deeper meanings.

      • sonny says:

        “It is hoped that millions of returning OFWs will share all the good stuff that they learnt elsewhere and less traveled Filipino populace can understand that a lot of bad stuff that is being done here could have been done in better ways. Your posting in FB is one tiny step that each OFW can and must take to help uplift the nation.”

        So very true, chempo. It is such a simple and clear realization that even a single, steadfast good-intentioned person acting in season and out, has a multiplier effect stronger than a bad-intentioned one. I always remember the situation on head-hunting among warring tribes of the natives of the Cordilleras. By listening and observing the good works of the American missionaries, they finally realized that continuance of the practice of head-hunting will eventually result in their extinction. And by a process of adapting and adopting the new and good things they observe, they made their own lives change for the better, in food, in shelter and education.

    • Joe America says:

      I’m glad you posted, Roberto. “Child ego state” fits perfectly and is consistent with my observation that the Philippines, from a historical and social development standpoint, displays the tendencies of an orphan who has had an unkind upbringing and is now bridging between teens and adulthood. May go crooked, may go straight.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Source: Two reasons the Philippine National Election may go south […]

  2. […] Source: Two reasons the Philippine National Election may go south […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s